1921-03-01

REPORTS TABLED

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Department of Mjlitia and Defence for the year 1920, and Regulations of the Canadian Air Force under the provisions of section 5 of the Air Board Act.- Hon. Mr. Guthrie.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 12 respecting copyright. He said:
This is a Bill that has been before the House during the last two session and its object is substantialy to make our law conform to the provisions of the Berne Convention and similar existing laws in other countries.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.
[Stage Direction]
INSPECTION OF GAS AND GAS METERS	*
Right Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 13 respecting the inspection of gas and gas meters.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. James Mclsaac for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Mackenzie King, resumed from Friday, February 25.
Mr. ROBERT JAMES MANION (Fort William and Rainy River) :: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to join with other speakers in offering congratulations to the mover and seconder of the Address in reply to the speech from the Throne. Secondly, I desire also, in common with other hon. gentlemen, to congratulate the Right Hon. the Prime Minister (Hon. Mr. Meighen) on his elevation to the highest office in the gift of the Canadian people at an age when most men are only entering public life. I do not intend to take up any time in extolling the great abilities or the unrivalled debating powers of the right hon. gentleman. If I desired to do so, if it were my purpose to sing him a p*an of praise, I should need but to take some of the words uttered in the speeches of hon. gentlemen opposite who, in their courtesy, were practically all of them kind enough to say very flattering things to the leader of the Government. I admit that there was one speaker on the other side, the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault), who publicly declined to congratulate the Prime Minister. I am glad, however, looking at the Prime Minister, to observe that so far he has survived that calamity.
Sir, it had not been originally my intention to participate in this debate when it began, but a number of speakers on the other side,-friends of mine at one time, but at the present moment political opponents,

made remarks about some of the Liberal-Unionists which, I felt, required some reply from us. For example, the hon. member for St. James Division of Montreal (Mr. Rinfret) made the statement that we were a group of weak-kneed reformers trailing behind the leader of the Government; and on other occasions other speakers opposite variously designated us as being servile and subservient. Well, Sir, I think that the aspersion of being weak in the knees or of lacking in courage can easily be proven to be not only discourteous but also unti-ue; for it will be admitted by any fair-minded gentlemen that any man who, for a principle, whether that principle be right or wrong, leaves a political party and its leader and joins forces with another party cannot easily be accused of being weak-kneed or of lacking in courage. We all remember that at the beginning of the late war the right hon. John Morley and Mr. John Burns retired from the British Ministry because they did not agree with the Liberal Ministry then in power on the principle that Britain should assist the French in repelling the aggression of the Germans. I do not think that there is any hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House who would endorse the motive that actuated them; but at the same time I do not think there is any gentleman on the other side who will assert that those men lacked the courage of their conviction in doing what they did. Well, Sir, the Liberal-Unionists in Canada who took the step they took in 1917 acted on exactly the same principle. They left political friends with whom they had been associated throughout then-public careers; they parted company with a leader whom they all respected and admired, and in many cases, my own included, loved; they left that party and that leader a certain principle. Now, whether that principle was right or wrong may be open to dispute, according to one's views; but certainly the remark that the Liberal-Unionists were weak-kneed in their action cannot be truthfully made. As to being-subservient or servile, Mr. Speaker, I may-say that since my advent into this House you have occupied the Chair, and I think you will remember that on many occasions hon. gentlemen on this side attacked the Government, and their attacks were of such frequent occurrence that my hon. friend from Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) dubbed them family quarrels; and I remember quite well that some sections of the press described them as sniping from behind. On many occasions that occurred, and it can truthfully be said that a very large proportion of hon. members on this side of the House have at one time or another attacked the Government arid voted against their leaders, myself included in the latter

t
category of conduct. Even that gentleman who is reputed to be the High Priest of Protection in this party, my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) on one occasion voted against his leader. Mr. Speaker, if you will look back I do not think you can find any occasion on which my hon. friends on the other side attacked their leader, either the present incumbent of the office or his predecessor. I do not remember an occasion on which the hon. members on the other side voted against their leader, with the exception of that occasion on which the late member for St. James (Mr. L. A. Lapointe) and the member for Sherbrooke (Mr. McCrea) voted against their leader on the Budget. Of course, last year the indemnity question was the occasion of a free-for-all; and the leader iof the opposition took whatever stand he deemed best and his followers voted differently from him. We on this side, Mr. Speaker, have been neither servile nor subservient. On the contrary,- and I say this with no ill intent- if you will look back a little and view fairly the past conduct of hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House, I think you will conclude that subservience and servility have never been characteristic of hon. gentlemen on this side.
On another occasion in this debate one hon. member-I will not give his name- a gentleman whom I respect highly, but whose views I do not endorse, made the statement that the Liberal-Unionists here at the present time had none of the attributes of Liberalism. Well, Sir, there was a time fifty or seventy-five or a hundred years ago, when the terms: 'Liberal" and "Conservative" in Great Britain, whence they came, did signify a great deal of difference in their outlook upon the life of the nation. The word "Tory" for example, was supposed to mean-and I believe did mean perhaps a hundred years ago-that that party was fighting for the interest of the king and the aristocracy, or the classes as they were dubbed; and the Liberal was fighting for the masses. But, Sir, to-day the questions that divide political parties in England are such questions as the tariff, the treatment of Ireland, and Imperialism -those are the questions that the two political parties in England divide upon to-day. I do not think those differences ever did exist in Canada for though an aristocracy exists in England we never had one in this country. We are all working, so far as we can, for the good of the country as a whole; and while the Liberals

and the Conservatives in this country take their names from the British political parties they have paid very little attention to the question of fighting for the divine right of kings, or the rights of the aristocracy, so far as my historical reading-permits me to say. The other day I read a speech by the Right Hon. Henry Campbell-Bannerman who was Liberal premier of Great Britain from, I think, 1904 to 1908, and may say I had the pleasure of being in Scotland when he was elected. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman having-been Prime Minister and the leader of Liberalism in the British Parliament is an authority on Liberalism that can hardly be disputed. The speech to which I have reference was delivered nearly twenty years ago but I presume traditions and principles continue in effect. In making what he called a declaration of Liberal principles he dealt with the Irish question, with Imperialism, with Egypt and the Sudan, and with relations with Russia. These were questions which our political parties in Canada were not arguing very much about. Then Sir Henry spoke about matters of domestic policy, and the three subjects to which he paid special attention were old age pensions, better housing, and extending the suffrage. These are three policies which our party on this side have either dealt with or are supporting in the speech from the Trone, and on practically none of the policies he spoke of are we at variance.
Then, Sir, I was reading the other day Winston Churchill's life of his father. At the time of writing Winston Churchill was a Liberal. He had never even crossed the floor of the House to support any other party, he was a bona fide Liberal. Speaking of the Liberal split on the Irish question in 1887 he says:
The Liberal Unionists denied that they had severed themselves from the principles and traditions of Liberalism,-and there is no doubt that they were perfectly honest. They were not conscious of any abandonment of principle. They remained in political opinion on all great questions exactly where they had been.
. . . But in fact, one change had taken place of more practical importance than all the symbols of party, and counting more in political warfare than any change of principles, however sudden or sweeping,-they had changed sides.
Ah, Sir, that is the political crime pat-excellence. But one is forced to ask if political principles are a matter of House of Commons geography.
Well, Sir, in Canada the same conditions to my mind have prevailed. I am perfectly

honest in this statement and open to the correction of other hon. gentlemen, but I have failed to get that correction on many different occasions. I believe that in regard to most principles it is a matter of tradition, something of the past rather than something of the present. I believe in the past it has been pretty much the case of the "ins" and the "outs". The hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) said the other day that the Tories look down on the people and the Liberals look up to them. I presume my hon. friend would himself admit that is pretty much of a platitude. It may have been true fifty years ago but I doubt whether there is very much truth in his statement today.
Hon. gentlemen opposite claim for themselves that they are a low-tariff party. This question has been sifted and debated to a certain extent in this House, but I have a few figures here-I will be very brief in their recital-which may help to settle their claim in that regard. The figures were given to me by the Chief Statistical Officer' of the Customs Department, and I do not think there is any question about them. They are taken from the Trade and Commerce Report showing the average ad valorem rate of duty on total imports from 1878 up to 1919, and he has brought them up to date.
Between 1878 and 1896, before Sir Wilfrid Laurier's party came into power, the average ad valorem rate of duty from IS per cent up to 22 per cent. From 1896 to .1911, the average ad valorem rate of duty ran from 16 per cent to 19 per cent. For the calendar year 1920-that is from January 1, 1920, to January 1 following-they were only from 15 per cent to 19 per cent. What is still more striking, the war ta: was taken off May 19, 1920, and from June 1, 1920, to January 31, of this year, which forms the past eight months, the rate was 13.16 per cent, or nearly three points lower than it was during any year of the Liberal regime from 1896 to 1911. If the low tariff party is the Liberal party these figures would indicate that my friends here are the Liberals and the Conservatives are opposite. But, Sir, I believe that both parties, Liberal and Conservative, ha vs been worshiping merely names. To illustrate how little it takes to make a plank of a political platform I am going to quote from a book entitled Public Men and Public Life in Canada, by Hon. James Young, published in 1912. Mr. Young in his work discusses the reasons why the two political parties of that time came to
take their positions on the tariff in 1876. He says that Hon. R. J. Cartwright on February 25, delivered the Budget speech. It was expected he would advise a moderate increase in the tariff, but he did not. The author of this book says:
Sir John Macdonald and the Honourable Charles Tupper did not disguise their surprise at the Government's action. The latter had to reply to the Finance Minister, but Sir John at a later stage admitted his own surprise. "1 came, I confess it, to hear his (Mr. Cartwright's) speech, impressed with the idea that he was going to bring down an alteration of the tariff.'' According to current report, the Honourable Charles Tupper came to the House loaded up to denounce an increase of the tariff, and to dilate-as he had done before-on the danger of permitting an entrance to the thin end of the protectionist wedge. Such an unexpected change in the situation would have appalled many another man. But in debate, nothing could appal Sir Charles. As usual he rose equal to the occasion. With surprising coolness he turned his guns, took up the opposite line of attack, and probably made a more forcible and effective criticism of the Government's course than if he had been able to use the mental ammunition which he had specially prepared for the occasion.
And he goes on to tell the following incident:-
When Dr. Tupper concluded his speech about half-past ten o'clock, and shortly before the House adjourned, the Hon. Mr. Mackenzie went across the Chamber to the front of the doctor's desk and the two doughty antagonists-the heroes of so many political battles-indulged in what seemed to the onlookers a very friendly and amusing conversation, which ht times seemed to verge a little too near the hilarious for a legislative body with the Speaker still in the Chair.
Mackenzie returned, and stopping in front of hon. Mr. Young's chair, he said:
"What do you think Tupper has just told me?"
"I have no idea," I replied.
"Well," continued Mr. Mackenzie, "I went over to banter him a little on his speech, which I jokingly alleged was a capital one considering he had been loaded up on the other side. He regarded this as a good joke, and frankly admitted to me that he had entered the House under the belief that the Government intended to raise the tariff, and fully prepared to take up the opposite line of attack."
And Mr. Young concludes:
What the Liberal and Conservative parties did that night, however, was pregnant with importance. They were making history. Had Mr. Mackenzie increased the tariff, the Conservatives would probably have become, as already suggested-the Free Traders instead of the Protectionists of Canada, and our political history would have been quite different during the ensuing twenty years.
Sir Richard Cartwright in his reminiscences confirms this incident, and at page 156, says that up to 1876 it was more than doubtful what policy the Conservatives



would adopt with regard to protection, and apparently the same was true of the Liberals. It may be worth while reminding the House again that it was Sir Robert Peel, a Conservative Premier, and the Conservative party, that brought free-trade into England in 1846. In this House there is a low-tariff party, or a no-tariff party, at the other end of the Chamber, the Farmer or Agrarian party. I must admit that on the other side of the House among the Liberals there are two hon. members who have been out-and-out free traders, my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. MgMaster), and my hon. friend from Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon). Both are equally strong free traders but I notice that my hon. friend from Brome has lately been soft-pedalling his utterances. I found myself wondering if the hon. member was changing his viewpoint, or whether it was the same sort of subserviency to party with which he is so fond of twitting us.
Then, in his recently delivered speech, the hon. member for Brome repeated Edmund Burke's definition of what he considered was a political party, namely, a group of men banded together to forward the same principles or policies which they hold in common. The hon. member continued commenting on that and said that any man who did not agree with the party with which he was allied had no right to belong to that party. I absolutely agree with him. But I thought, Sir, of asking him, what about himself? The other day he was rather prone to gibe the hon. member for Yarmouth (Mr. Spinney) upon exactly this lack of agreement with his party which applies so well to the hon. member for Brome, and I could not help thinking that no humour is so funny as unconscious humour. Listening to the hon. member one might easily conclude that the stream of Liberalism had its source in the county of Brome, but, if so, his party has not followed him along the banks of that stream. And, as far as the other traditions of both the old parties go, to my mind they could be spoken of in very much the same manner as I have spoken of those which I have discussed. Therefore it seems to me-and I say it with all sincerity-[DOT] that the logical and proper course for my hon. friends on the other side would be to follow the same leader as I am following in carrying out the policy which is for the benefit of the industrial and agricultural interests of Canada as a whole, but more particularly for the industrial and agri-

cultural interests of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
Sir, no one will disagree with me when I say that the agricultural.and industrial interests of these two provinces are absolutely similar. I admit that in the past there have been some cries of race and creed, perhaps from both sides of the House, but I do not think that any hon. gentleman on the other side will ever accuse me of having fostered by action or word any cry of race or creed. On that point I believe sincerely that the proper course for the province of Quebec to take would be to support the right hon. the leader of this Government and to co-operate in carrying out those policies and principles which are to the advantage of the agricultural and industrial interests of the Dominion.
I see my hon. friend from East Quebec (Mr. Lapointe) smiling. Well, I do not suppose that any words of mine will have the effect of making my hon. friends on the other side rush across to this side of the House; but at the same time I am saying what I sincerely believe to be correct, and what I think in their hearts a great many of my hon. friends on the other side also believe to be correct.
The usual reason given for an hon. member crossing the floor of the House is that he differs from his party in regard to some great principle or policy. That being so, will my hon. friend from Brome tell me, on what great principle or policy do I differ from my associates on this side of the blouse? I do not know, and, if I may judge by a great deal of criticisms levelled at the right hon. the Prime Minister, I do not think that most of my hon. friends on the other side of the House really differ with him on any great principle or policy. As a matter of fact, Sir, the majority of the Liberal Unionists still support the party they were elected to support in 1917, because, after all, while the leaders have changed, I admit frankly that there is a continuation of the same party.
My hon. friends on the other side of the House have a habit of saying that the Government and the members behind the Government have no mandate to remain in this House. I will admit that possibly there may be some truth in that; but when they argue that we should cross the floor of the House, I would like to ask, who gave me a mandate to get behind the hon. the leader of the Opposition? He was defeated-I say this with the utmost respect, for I do not wish to offend him-he was defeated in

1917, this Government was elected in the general election of that year, and I was elected behind it. What excuse could I offer to the Liberals and the Conservatives who stood behind me in my constituency if I went before them after crossing the floor of the House? I can understand an hon. member doing' as my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) did, because he,
I believe sincerely, stated that he obligated himself to withdraw. Well, Sir, I do not admit that I obligated myself to withdraw, and I wish to state that never in the election in my constituency was the question of how long I wras being elected for discussed; and I venture to say further that I believe that in ninety per cent of the constituencies that question was not brought up. Another point that is worth considering is that this Government or its predecessor was elected by the most overwhelming majority ever- given a Government in this country. Supposing that all the allegations regarding the overseas vote are true, the Government was elected in this country. I was elected by something like 2,500 majority, and I got another thousand votes from overseas which I did not need. My old friend the late James Conmee, who sat on the Liberal side for many years, was satisfied with a majority of 300 or 400. It is charged that we were elected only for the duration of the war, but, I repeat, Sir, that on no occasion in my constituency was that question brought up. I believe that the vast majority of the Liberals, Conservatives, Farmers and Laborites and soldiers who were behind me in 1917 are behind me still.
In discussing last year the amendment proposed by my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, that the Government should go to the country, I said that if after the session the Government should look into the question and find that a majority of the people wanted an election, they should go to the country. I think that still, Sir. But, apparently the Government have looked into the question and have come to the conclusion that while the demand for an election may be widely spread it is rather thinly spread, and personally I agree with them in that conclusion. In pointing that out I would like to direct the attention of my hon. friends of the Opposition that the prejudices of the right hon. the leader of the Government are no greater against an election than are the prejudices of my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition for an election. So far as I am personally concerned, I do 23J
not fear an election now or at any other time, but I do not see why any noisy declarations from any group should have any undue weight with those who do not agree with them. It is only the man -who has no strength of character of his own who permits all the changing breezes of public sentiment to sway him to and fro like a weather-cock.
In the speeches of my hon. friends opposite there have been practically no criticisms of the right hon. the Prime Minister and his Government or his policies, principles or legislation. That appears to me to be quite a compliment to him and to his Government. I admit that my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition has claimed that the Government are usurpers. Well,
I will admit they are usurpers in the mind of the Opposition, because any Government that ever occupied the treasury benches of this House were usurpers in the minds of the Opposition. Every Opposition knows that, and every Opposition knows that if fair play had been used in the election only the Opposition would have been returned to power. So there is nothing particularly strange in that point of view.
There were some personal criticisms of my right hon. friend the leader of the Government, and the reason I take them up is not because he needs my help, because I have noticed that he is always quite capable of defending himself, but a spirit of fair play prompts me to refer to them. My hon. friend from Beauce (Mr. Beland) is a man whom I admire very much and for whose breadth of view I have a great deal of respect. Like myself my hon. friend usually boasts that he does not raise the cry of race or creed, and I think he is sincere in that boast. I do not wish to be unfair in my criticism, but I think my hon. friend was not quite fair as he went on. He said that the right hon. the leader of the Government had denied that he had spoken against the people or the province of Quebec, and had defied any member of the Opposition to quote any speeches of his which will warrant that description. My hon. friend from Beauce said that actions speak louder than words, and he proceeded to name a number of commissions upon which he said there were no French members: The Canadian National Railway Board, the International Joint Waterways Commission, the Pensions Board, Board of Commerce, and the three gentlemen who represented Canada at the Peace Conference, and those later who attended the first meeting of the Assembly of the League of

Nations. He failed to mention the Dominion Railway Commission and Civil Service Commission, upon which there are French members, but, of course, to make a reference to those would not agree with his argument. However, of the six commissions or bodies which my hon. friend from Beauce mentioned, only one was appointed by my right hon. friend the leader of the Government, so that my hon. friend, in proving that actions speak louder than words, uses somebody else's actions as the basis for the laying of a charge against the Prime Minister. The representatives that were appointed by my right hon. friend, were the representatives to the Assembly of the League of Nations, held lately, and while I admit-and I am sorry for it-that there were no French Canadians on that representation, the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Doherty), who was a member of the delegation, is a gentleman from Montreal who speaks French and can claim, I think, to be a good friend of the French Canadian people.
Another point I would like to mention is this: my right hon. friend (Mr. Meigben) recently appointed a new judge to the Supreme Court of Canada. For some years, I believe, there had been only one French-Canadian judge on that body, but my right hon. friend very recently appointed Mr. Mignault to a vacant judge -ship there. I understand that it is some years since two French Canadian judges sat on the bench of the Supreme Court of Canada. I simply point this out as a small matter, but one which, after all, shows no such hatred of the French Canadian people as has been charged against the Prime Minister by some hon. gentlemen opposite.
Then, the member for Chambly-Vercheres (Mr. Archambault), made the charge against the right hon. leader of the Government that he was making love to the province of Quebec without a mandate. Well, Sir, making love is an old and much respected custom. I have known our French Canadian friends for many years, and if I may judge by that knowledge and by the natural increase in the population down there I should think that love-making is not such an unpopular pastime as might be inferred from the remarks of my hon. friend. However, Sir, what is the crime? Even supposing my right hon. friend is making love to the province of Quebec, in what respect is it a crime to attempt to bring about a better feeling of friendship between the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario and the rest of Canada?
C3Hr. Man ion. 1
The old charge was that my right hon. friend and his associates were trying to isolate the province of Quebec; now it is the reverse, so that one is forced to the conclusion that politics plays ducks and drakes with consistency and logic.
Why, Sir, are these vicious attacks being made on the Prime Minister on the ground of his alleged hatred for Quebec? What has the Prime Minister done? Is it because he, on behalf of the Government of which he was a member, piloted through this House a certain amount of unpopular legislation? In this connection it is worth remembering that, after all, he was only a member of that Government; he was not the Government itself. I am sincere in this; I would like to know what it is that my right hon. friend has done. In what respect has he showed that hatred for the province of Quebec which is attributed to him? Was it the Military Service Act? I do not know, but I sometimes have a suspicion that perhaps it was the Military Service Act. Well, if that is the case, I have only this to say: the Military Service Act did not particularly specify French Canadians as against English-speaking Canadians; it was an Act for the whole of Canada. That being the case, and if the suspicion is correct that it is the Military Service Act which the Opposition hold against my hon. friend, then why do hon. gentlemen opposite not hold it also against the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding); against the member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar); against the member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark), and against all the other gentlemen who have joined my hon. friends on the other side of the House-against, indeed, all those Liberals who came in in 1917 and supported that Act? Sir, I find it difficult to understand the attitude that repels friendly advances and is angered by them; that fosters antagonism and strife; that prefers the gauntlet of battle to the hand of friendship and co-operation in a common cause.
I believe that the sane element in this country to-day do not desire an election, having regard to the unsettled conditions which it would cause, and to the turmoil, uncertainty, and business disturbances which would prevail. And why should they desire an election? This Government and its predecessor brought in a great deal of legislation, which, to my mind, was of a wise and sane character^ Let us look at it for a moment-and these are only a few instances which have occurred to me in jotting down these notes. The Government

carried on Canada's part in the war. There may be some criticism of details in that regard, but on the whole I think the people of Canada feel that our part in the war was carried on creditably and courageously. Then, Sir, after that they brought about demobilization in a very able manner. They adopted measures of soldiers' civil re-establishment, and a soldier land settlement scheme that was looked upon by many people as a standard for adoption by many other countries. They have brought in a life insurance scheme for soldiers and a pension system which involves a higher pension scale than that of any other country. They established a Department of Health, and in the speech from the Throne this year they mention the establishment of a Department of Scientific Research. They gave the franchise to women and brought in a Franchise Act which fair-minded people look upon as a very high type of law. They brought Canada through the war from a financial standpoint in such a capable manner that Canada, with the possible exception of the United States, is to-day in a better financial position than any other country that took part in the war. They put on an income tax something which had been talked of on both sides of politics for a -long' time, but upon which action was never taken until an income tax system was established by the preceding Government. Finally, Sir, they insist and have insisted on Canada taking its place as a nation in the galaxy of the nations of the empire. That, Sir, is laughed at by some of my friends opposite. Well, as a man who is the same type of Canadian as they are, I am proud of the things which have been done to show that Canada is really taking the part of a nation within the Empire. I confess that even as a young boy I used to experience a feeling of disgust wheri I read of international conferences where Canada did not even have the status of the little negro republics of Central America. I am proud of the fact that at the Peace Conference there were representatives to speak for Canada. The member for Shelburne and Queen's-I say it with the utmost respect, for I have a very great respect for the hon. gentleman- rather made fun of that, and was cheered by his friends on the other side when he did so. Personally I do not understand that attitude.
Then, the appointment of an ambassador from Canada to the United States is certainly a lead towards a high class of Can-adianism. Then, there is the matter of the
appointment of Canada's representatives at the League of Nations. Should we have been represented by gentlemen from across the water, even if they did come from England?
I do not believe so; I like to have the Canadian people speak for themselves. I was proud to read in the press the statement,-[DOT]
I think it was made by Mr. Rowell, one of the representatives at the recent Conference-that the Canadian people handled their own affairs and did not permit any country, even England, to interfere with their domestic policies. I think everybody should be proud of that. All these things -which have been laughed at by hon. gentlemen opposite, largely, I suppose, from the political standpoint-tend to the building up of the right type of Canadianism,-a type of Canadianism w'hich looks after itself.
The member for Chambly-Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) got a great round of applause because he said he stood out for Canada and was always thinking of Canada first. Why, Sir, that is what this Government and its predecessor have been doing all the time. I venture to say that every hon. gentleman on this side agrees with the hon. member for Chambly-Vercheres that Canada should come first in Canada's policy. Well, looking- over that line of legislation, I ask hon. gentlemen whether it is a type of legislation in respect of which the Government need blush? Is that the type of legislation that this Government should be punished for having put into force in this country? I do not think so.
I was asking why the people should ask for an election. Why should the people of this country demand an election? I gave the first answer-because of wise and sane legislation. The second is that there have been no charges of graft against the ministers of this Government. And the third is that the country generally is prosperous. It is true that there is a certain amount of unemployment, but I made it my business the other day to make inquiries of officials of the Labour Department and I was informed by them that Canada is in no worse position from the unemployment standpoint than it has been in at other times when there have been depressions throughout the country. Indeed, it was pointed out-and I would like to give the Minister of Labour credit for this on the floor of the House-that it had not been the practice to keep any statistics relating to unemployment, but as soon as the Minister of Labour came in he started to keep such statistics; and it is the opinion of the depart-

to us on this side, when the Government does anything of which we can cordially approve. That does not, however, mean that the Opposition is to abandon criticism, because an Opposition that abandons criticism abandons its duty. Parliament is a place for plain speaking. A vigilant and efficient parliamentary critic is, a man who will not knowingly say anything that is false and who will not fear to say anything that is true. If an opening appears in the armour of the Government, a good soldier on this side would be expected to strike, provided always that the opening is above the belt. The selection of my right hon. friend as leader has rallied the old Liberal-Conservative party under a new name, and has revived the old battle cry of "Protection". Unionism is dead, and there are very few mourners going about the streets. The old Liberal-Conservative party is on deck again under a new name. During my life-time this party has changed its name about as often as Henry VIII changed his wives-first Tory, then Conservative, next Confederation, then Liberal-Conservative, then Unionist, and now National Liberal and Conservative. But it is the same old party and the policy is substantially the same old policy. The Ethiopian has not changed his skin and the spots of the leopard are easily detected. The old Liberal-Conservative party stood for a high protective tariff; this party does the same. The old party stood for a partisan franchise; this party does likewise. The old party spent in excess of its income; there is, no evidence of a change of heart in that respect. The old party promised ports and drydocks and dredging in order to elect Cabinet ministers; it took the promise of port improvements to pave the way for the election of the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) ; it required the construction of a drydock costing millions to elect the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie), and the largest and most powerful suction dredge in the world had to be imported from the United States and actually put to work, pumping mud in Courtenay bay under full steam, to elect the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue (Mr. Wigmore). There is now no pretense that any man of Liberal views can any longer support this administration. Shakespeare says that "Misery makes strange bedfellows." So does politics. One would have thought, a few years ago, that a proposal to fuse together permanently the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) and the hon. member for Yarmouth and Clare (Mr. Spinney) in the same political party with the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) would be nothing short of flying in the face of the Scriptures by putting new wine into old bottles. But this has actually taken place and nothing serious has happened. The wine may be weak, I do not profess to know, but all I can say is that so far the bottles have not burst. There have been numerous changes in the Cabinet, to which reference has already been made, but that has become the custom. Ever since 1917 the Cabinet has continued to change like a kaleidoscope. It has evidently ceased to have any elements of stability and has become a place where men go in and out to find pasture. Some years ago there was a celebrated cabinet change in these provinces, known as the "double shuffle," but since 1917 we have had what will be known in the future political history of this country as the perpetual Cabinet shuffle.
The financial condition of the country will be discussed when the Budget is brought down, and I trust that the Budget may not be too long delayed. May I also express the hope that detailed information will be given regarding the expenditure of $121,000,000 for which no vouchers were available last year, and further, that the Government will this year respect the provisions of the Audit Act which they violated last year and the year before, and see that the Auditor General's report in complete form is laid on the table of the House within fifteen days of the opening of the session. The sooner Parliament is made acquainted with the facts, the better.
There are rumours of another enormous railway deficit, there are also rumours of new methods of taxation to be proposed; but from no Government source have we any concrete proposal looking towards retrenchment or economy. I would like to hear that the Minister of Finance is doing some concentrated thinking on this question of economy, but economy seems to be a lost art with this Government. I want to say to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), who I am sorry is not now in his seat, that the people of this country are wide awake. They are not ignorant of the waste that is going on. They are not ignorant of the lack of efficiency and business ability on the part

of this Government. They have known what it has cost in good money and bad service for this Government to assume control of 20,000 miles of railway. The high freights and the big deficits tell their own story. The people have been taking notice. They have seen the civil servants increase like the army worm, and the public debt grow like rolling up a snowball.
If you would like me to make some practical suggestions in the direction of economy I am willing to do so. Here are a few modest proposals. Reduce the force of the Northwest Mounted Police and confine their operations to the unorganized territories and the Yukon, and thereby save a very large sum of money every year. Cut down the army and navy expenditure. Reduce the cost of administration. Reduce the number of portfolios. Practice economy in every department of Government. Stop squandering money on ships that are not required. Make economy the watch ward.	Establish a blacklist in which the names of all the wasters in the public service will be recorded. Reduce the present army of civil servants and stop making further appointments except where absolutely necessary. No more dredging in Courtenay bay. No more play grounds in Toronto harbour. No more elevators at Halifax until the grain trade of the port will -warrant the expenditure, No more drill halls anywhere. No more political dry docks in British Columbia. No more News Bureau in New York or anywhere else, costing $30,000 a year to puff the Government and write headlines about eminent mediocrities. No more Griffinhagens at $10,000 a month to struggle with the hopeless task of reforming the Civil Service for a Government that does not seem to want reformation. Give the farmers, fishermen and other producers a chance. Do not spend too much time listening to the clamour of the Manufacturers' Association. Be vigilant in the collection of the income tax and see that no wealthy shirker escapes. Let the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance adopt these suggestions and they will earn the gratitude of the people of this country, and it will not be necessary for them to come before Parliament with deficits or with new methods of taxation to harass the people.
Mr. Speaker, if we could bargain with the Government to pay them by results, we would save an enormous sum of money.

One proposal, and to my mind A practical one, is that we should ration this Government. Their late leader when in Opposition stated that an expenditure of $85,000,000 on all ordinary services was so enormous a sum as to be in itself evidence of corruption. When he made that statement he was loudly cheered by his supporters, many of whom are still in the house supporting the present Administration. The expenditure arising out of the war must, of course, be provided for; I am not now' referring to war expenditure; but instead of voting $230,000,000 for ordinary expenditure on Consolidated Revenue account apart from the war, suppose we take hon. gentlemen opposite at their word and confine them strictly to the $85,000,000 that their late leader said was altogether too much, and then let them cut their coat according to their cloth.
My right hon. friend the Prime Minister during the recess had been making-speeches in Ontario and the West. One speech in particular has been brought to my attention. It was delivered in the county of Hastings, and in that speech he undertook to divide the people of this country into two classes. He is reported as follows:
I see only two classes, only two divisions, in the country. On the one side are those who hold their heads steady and walk firmly and erectly in the rnidle of the road, who learn from experience, who believe in industry, order and liberty, who still have faith in British institutions and principles, that have made us what we are to-day. And on the other side I see those who have surrendered to prejudice and class consciousness, to passion for change and experiment, whose minds are occupied in nurturing suspicion and hostility against other classes of the State. On the one side I see the builders of this country's foundations tried and true. On the other side those engaged in the cheerful occupation of tearing down. I put the question to you. Are you going to he a nation-builder, or a nation-wrecker?
Now, Mr. Speaker, that was certainly complimentary to hon. gentlemen on this side of the House. Our minds "occupied in nurturing suspicion and hostility against other classes in the States." Surely we are not so bad as that. I fear my right hon. friend has been looking at us through such distorted party spectacles that he has failed to see our good points. He divides the people into two classes: the nation-builders and the nation-wreckers. The nation-builders, I suppose, are the men who follow him and do his bidding.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Those who do, and
those who ought to.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: There are very few
of the latter.

Mi-. J. H. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guysborough) :	And the wreckers, I suppose, are those who venture to oppose him. The "wreckers" are the men who stand for freeing the necessaries of life and the implements of production from their present burdens, who stand for a 50 per cent preference to Great Britain, reciprocity on natural products with the United States, honest government, a free Parliament, economy in administration, a decent franchise, and recognition of the rights of labour.
Mr. Speaker, there was once a King in England, by the name of Charles the First, who believed in the high Tory principles of my right hon. friend. He would tolerate no change and no reform. He, too, held his head high, and he occupied so much space in the middle of the road that the common people were crowded into the gutter. In the end, the people of England found it necessary, in order to save themselves and to save the State, to chop off his head.
Now, Sir, I hope nothing of that kind, except in a figurative sense, will ever happen to my right hon. friend. These "wreckers," the Cromwells and the Hamp-dens and the Pyms and the Elliotts at once were transformed into nation builders; and, history now asserts that they were the genuine nation builders. Mr. Speaker, you cannot build a nation out of sugar magnates and pork barons and profiteers, or even out of the Manufacturers' Association. Nor can you build a nation by substituting secret Orders in Council for Acts of Parliament and ignoring the rights of the common people and elevating protection into a dogma. Just think of a man talking about British principles of justice who was the author of the War-time Elections Act! Our representative system in this country is based on the franchise. If the franchise can be manipulated for partisan purposes, then the system is rotten at its very core. This proposition will be accepted by every honest man, that absolute fairness in the use of the ballot is the only safety and the first requisite of a decent democracy. When we think of the flagrant injustice of the Franchise Act of last session, by which tens of thousands of partisan enumerators at every election are to be selected by the Government, under the vicious methods of the old partisan system, to strike the jury to try themselves, the less said about principles of justice the better. We had examples of this brand of justice in the by-elections during the recess, in which the dice were so heavily loaded that resistance was futile.
The mode of procedure is something like this: His Honour the Speaker issues a writ for a by-election, and the minister of elections then gets busy. The general returning officer is instructed to select his deputy, whose chief qualification is that he must be a partisan of the Government. The sheriff is passed over, because, being a responsible public official, he cannot be depended upon to serve the ends of the party. The result is that the general returning officer, not being acquainted in the riding, is practically forced to accept the recommendation of the Government candidate. The deputy returning Officer, himself a partisan, forthwith appoints one hundred additional partisans, one for each polling sub-division in the riding, and they in turn call in scores of other partisan heelers to assist; and among the whole force there is not a single representative of the Opposition. The result is a partisan list of the most approved type. Patronage, we are told, has been abolished; but this system is built from top to bottom of patronage and partisanship. It begins at the top and works downwards. It reminds one of the method in the old nursery rhyme in which the cat began to kill the rat, and the rat began to gnaw the rope, the rope began to beat the dog, and the dog began to bite the pig, so with the help of them all the old woman and her pig got safely over the stile. The strange thing about it is that the men who invented this system and made it a law of the country pose as champions of British justice and British fair-play. Hon. gentlemen in their speeches during the recess, have persisted in calling us on this side the remnant of a once great party. May I suggest that they look for a moment at their own decimated ranks? The holders of Cabinet positions in the present Administration do not claim to represent the once powerful Union party nor even the old Liberal-Conservative party. As a matter of fact, they have no mandate from any party, but, if I may be permitted to use the language of our mutual friend, Mr. Hampden Burnham, they are simply Mexican buccaneers who have seized the treasury and are clinging to office on the record of the old Union government. It will not be denied that the men of standing and influence have withdrawn themselves from this Government-in Nova Scotia, the men that gave respectability to the Government, were the late Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), and Hon. A. K. Maclean; in New Brunswick, Hon. Frank Carvell; in Ontario, the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. COMMONS
Mewburn), the hon. member for Leeds (Sir Thomas White), the hon. and gallant member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes), and the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Rowell) ; in the Prairie Provinces, the present leader of the Farmers' party (Mr. Crerar); and in British Columbia (Mr. Burrell). These gentlemen have all withdrawn from the Government. By far the strongest and most influential half of the Union Cabinet has deserted the bridge and refused any longer to be responsible for steering the ship. The remnant, to use the expi-ession hon. gentlemen opposite apply to us, still remain. They never had the confidence of the country and appear to have lost the confidence of a great many of their own associates. Still, hon. gentlemen opposite persist in describing us on this side as a "remnant." I have said that the tariff issue is again being forced to the front:	It is quite obvious, if we .are to judge by the Government press, that a determined effort is to be made to confuse and becloud that issue. It is not at the present time an issue between free trade on the one hand and protection on the other; there is no such conflict. The speeches of my right hon. friend were directed against a situation that does not exist. The issue is between a tariff framed with a special eye to the demands, or rather the commands, of powerful special interests and a tariff whose object will be to secure the required amount of revenue with the least possible burden on the tax-bearer. I am well aware that this question of the tariff is one of difficulty on which honest men differ. The principles underlying the doctrine of a tariff for revenue are right principles. The right does not always win, but I have an abiding faith that the right will win in the end. Sir Wilfrid Laurier was right in his naval policy, as he was also right in reciprocity. In both cases,' however, he lost; but he has already been vindicated, and time has proven that he saw further into the future than the noisy flag-flappers and demagogues who opposed him. The flag, Mr. Speaker, is a powerful political weapon when men are prosperous as they were in 1911; but when the flour barrel is empty and the snow is on the ground, and the head of the house is out of work, there is not much comfort in hoisting the old flag on the school-house. The purpose of a tariff should be to secure revenue for the state, and not to put money into the pockets of special interests. Public opinion will demand that our taxation

policy be framed with an eye to its effect on the great mass of the people. There can be no doubt about the policy of the Liberal party. It was cleverly defined at the great Liberal convention of 1919. But, let me ask, what is the policy of the Government on this vital question? As no popular convention of its party has been held, we have to look for the policy in the speeches of Government leaders. According to a report which appeared in the Montreal Gazette, my right hon. friend, at his meeting at Sherbrooke, Quebec, declared with great force that he had fought and would fight the free trade movement to the end of his political life. He is represented by the Gazette as saying that he believes in the principle of protection and will maintain that principle to the end of his political life. Now, I submit, with all	due deference,
that that	language	is reactionary.
Progress means that civilization is moving-in a desirable direction, and it is not desirable that the nations of this world should always be at war in matters relating to trade. With my right hon. friend it is not a question of securing revenue for the State, that is a mere incident. I have known public men who supported protection because they considered it necessary to temporarily assist weak industries, and also to raise a revenue. Sir John Macdonald was of that class. But we have produced very few public men who have regarded protection an an ideal and permanent condition. So far as I know, no country has ever yet placed all articles on the free list. Great Britain has always maintained a tariff, but it has been a tariff for revenue. The Prime Minister (Mr. Meiglien) repudiates that idea and declares his ad-herance to a tariff not for revenue but fox-protection. If my right hon. friend'.s ideals prevail, then the future is without hope for the consumer: protection of special interests will go on from age to age world without end. In other words when Macaulay's New Zealander, in the midst of vast solitude, takes his stand on a broken arch of London bridge to sketch the ruins of St. Paul's, even then the special interests will be gathering in the shekels that they have not earned and digging deep into the pockets of the helpless consumer.
But probably the men who have made the strongest statements on this tariff question are the new converts. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne) spoke at Montreal on November 15, and a report of his speech appeared in the Mon-

treal Gazette. The item is headed "Closed Factories." .
Let me point out to you what disastrous results would happen to our flourishing and great industrial province if the Liberals came into power, notwithstanding that when some of their prominent members are speaking in this province they talk strongly for protection. The Liberals are pledged, as I have pointed out to you, to increase the British preference to 50 per cent. X ask you what would happen to our great cotton and woollen mills, and many of our other industries, if we were thrown into competition to this extent with the cheap labour >f the United Kingdom, and their old established industries that are dong a world-wide : rade ?
My hon. friend, who is accustomed to -waving the Old Flag ' vigorously, when it does not affect his dividends, draws the line at the proposal to give a fifty per cent preference to Great Britain. He employs the same old scarecrow that. did duty in 1911. Fie asks: what would happen to our industries? Let me remind my hon. friend that in 1897 he supported a party that gave a twenty-five per cent preference to Great Britain and nothing serious happened-our industries never were so prosperous as they were after that preference had been granted. At that time Sir Charles Tapper, the then leader of the Opposition, raised the same cry thaf my hon. friend is raising now. He said that the Fielding preference would ruin the industries of Canada. But Sir Charles was mistaken; the wolf did not come. It looks foolish to drag this aged and imaginary wolf out from its hiding place a second time after our experience after 1897.
The Minister of Marine did us the honour to visit Nova Scotia during the last parliamentary recess. On that occasion he called a meeting of the faithful in Halifax, and delivered one of his sounding-brass speeches. Here is an extract taken from his own special organ, the Montreal *Gazette:
Mr. Ballantyne presented Premier Meighen's Stersonal congratulations to the Liberal-Conservative Club, together with the Premier's promise to visit it personally in January. He brought a "word of cheer to Unionists" regarding the next election, declaring that the party was sound in wind and limb. He criticised the tariff policy- of the Liberals, "the remnant of a once great party," he called them, and believed that, even were the Government defeated it would be by the Free Trade radicals. He prophesied that Mackenzie King would never be Premier of Canada.
"Sound in wind and limb." My hon. friend was probably quite right about the wind. "The remnant of a once great party." Now that characterization is easily explained. The party was great when my hon. friend belonged to it, and when he left
it was a mere remnant. I might be permitted to point out to my hon. friend that at the last general election this "remnant" elected to this House, if I remember rightly, sixty-two out of sixty-five members from his own province, and I am told that there is a fair chance that the "remnant" may elect the whole sixty-five the next time.
Mr. Speaker, one of the most extraordinary and, I might say, ludicrous things in the whole history of public life in this country has been the spectacle of the late Prime Minister and the present Prime Minister travelling like itinerant pedlars over the province of Quebec looking among two millions of people for some one who would accept a portfolio in the Government, and failing to find a single man willing to undertake the risk involved in the venture. Still we are told "the party is sound in wind and limb." Let me read the last sentence from the paragraph which I just quoted:
He prophesied that Mackenzie King would never be Premier of Canada.
No doubt the wish was father to the prophecy. The trouble with my hon. friend is that he assumes to practise the gift of prophecy without being possessed of the infallibility necessary for a prophet. When a man resorts to prophecy all discussion has to stop. You can argue with an ordinary man but you cannot argue with a prophet.
One of the most startling incidents cf the recess was the public admission of a change of heart on the part of my hon. friend the Minister of Colonization and Immigration (Mr. Calder). At Medicine Hat, according to the Montreal Gazette, he struck right out from the shoulder. Let me quote a short extract from his speech on that occasion:
Mr. Calder in opening- his remarks told the audience that for years past he had been fooling the West and fooling himself with free-trade talk, but that more mature reflection had brought him to the fiscal views of his new leader.
Well, Mr. Speaker, all that I can say is that a public man, holding a position of trust as a representative of the people, should not attempt to fool anybody. This is a sorry admission on the part of the hon. gentleman. This trade question is no joke; it is a matter of grave concern, especially to the man who has to provide the necessaries of life for his family. Again, at Moosejaw, on October 26, my hon. friend occupied the same platform with the Prime Minister. The report of his speech states:

o
During his speech Mr. Calder said: It has been claimed that I have become a Tory. Well, 1 have not, and don't intend to.
What are you? shouted someone in the audience. There is one thing I am not, and that is a Mackenzie-King Liberal. I am a Liberal and as Rood a Liberal as I ever was.
Mr. Speaker, when Artemus Ward was asked about his principles he frankly admitted that he "hadn't any-to use his own language-"nary a principle." Now that is -peculiar, but it is not as peculiar as a man claiming to have two kinds of principles at the same time, and those two kinds diametrically opposed to one another. My hon. friend for many years was closely identified with the Liberal party in Western Canada. He was one of the apostles of free trade in that country. He was a sort of political Gamaliel. The people of the West sat at his feet and they thought they were learning the lessons of commercial freedom. They looked upon him as a thorough low-tariff man, and I understand that he made many converts. Now we are told he was fooling the West and fooling himself.
The extraordinary thing about the attitude of my hon. friend is that he still claims to be a Liberal, and he tells us at the same time that he has adopted the fiscal views of his new leader-and everybody knows that there is nothing Liberal about the fiscal views of the Prime Minister. There is a character, Mr. Speaker, in Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, with which you will be familiar, called Mr. Faeing-Both-Ways. When any question came up for decision during his pilgrimage, Mr. Facing-Both-Ways tried to be on both sides. The extraordinary thing about my hon. friend is that he is trying to face both ways at the same time. He is posing as a sort of political contortionist who can perform the extraordinary acrobatic trick of planting his feet firmly in one direction and turning his face just as firmly in the opposite direction. If I may he permitted to do I would like to warn my hon. friend. If I remember Bunyan's story correctly, Mr. Facing-Both-Ways never reached the Celestial City. Take another extract from the hon. gentleman's speeches:
When I entered the Government I found that men in the Cabinet whom I had looked upon as Liberals, were what we had called Tories, and I found men whom we had thought were old crusted Tories were as Liberal in their sentiment as I was.
This was a startling discovery. He found that the Tories in the Union cabinet were Liberals, and the Liberals were Tories. During twenty years of association with these gentlemen he had never suspected this; he thought that the Liberals were 
Liberals, and that the Tories were Tories. It was only when he took his seat qt the Council board and saw the inside of his colleagues, so to speak, that the actual truth dawned upon him. He then found for the first time that the real Simon-pure hidebound Tories were such men as the hon. leader of the Farmers' party (Mr. Crerar), the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean), the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Rowell), and the ex-Minister of Public Works, Hon. Mr. Carvell; these hon. gentlemen were real old crusted Tories. They had been masquerading In sheep's clothing for the last twenty years until my hon. friend's discovery and exposure. On the other hand, the men of advanced Liberal views were my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen), the right hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), the right hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) and the hon. the Minister of Railways (Mr Reid). These, Mr. Speaker, are the shining lights of Liberalism who are now to stand shoulder to Shoulder with my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration and Colonization in his gallant fight for the triumph of Liberal principles. My hon. friend says that he has changed his views on this vital question of the tariff. He is an honourable man and I accept his word. At the same time there are two distinct ideals; one is tariff for revenue, and the other tariff for protection. I can understand how a man can modify his views to suit the circumstances of trade and the needs of revenue, but I find it difficult to understand how a man sincerely searching for the right course can, without any new evidence, change his ideals.
The Government press is now claiming that the Government has a fighting chance at the next election on this tariff issue. Much depends on the attitude of those opposed to the present administration. Among the rank and file of the voters the Government at this moment is in a hopeless minority. The recent election in West Peterborough is an indication of the state of public feeling. If the Government has a fighting chance it is by dividing its opponents into two or three camps. If the Liberal party and the Farmers' party can reach a working agreement, I venture to make the forecast that the days of this Government are numbered. The Liberal party and the Farmers' party working together would be invicible; and, after all, the farmer is only a liberal in a hurry. Why should they not work together? Both stand for a large measure of commercial

freedom; both stand for reciprocity with the United States in natural products; both stand for increasing the British preference. While there are differences in the platforms of the two parties, there are sufficient similarities to raise a strong presumption that those parties might pull together.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: May I ask my hon.
friend a question? He intimates that the policies of the two parties are the same. Does he agree with the Farmers' policy in regard to free coal?


Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-berough) :: What is that policy?


Avard Longley Davidson: May I inform my
hon. friend that it was explained by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) last week when he plainly stated that one of the planks of the Farmers' party was free coal. Will my hon. friend's party go that far?	*


John Ewen Sinclair: My hon. friend will note that I said there were differences between the two platforms, but that they were not so material but what the two parties might form a working agreement. The question raised by my hon. friend is one of the matters to be adjusted. I was just about to say that in 1911 Sir Wilfrid Laurier risked everything to give the farmers wider and better markets for their produce and lost. What the Liberal party did in 1911 it is ready to do again in 1921. I question if there is a single thing that the Farmers' party can do for themselves that the Liberal party would not do for them.
There are certain political farmers in my own province, 1 am told, who have gone so far as to say that if they had control of the Government they could regulate the price of farm products so that the farmer would not be subject to losses by fluctuations of the market. No class deserves more consideration at the hands of a_ Government than the farmers. The farmer's business is regarded by many people as a safe and profitable business, but every man who has had actual experience, as I have had for I was brought up on a farm, knows that there is a large element of hazard in farming. The late spring frosts, the early frosts in the autumn, the drought of summer, the hail storms, the rust, the weeds, the weevil, the blight, the potato bug, the army worm, and the tax collector, including the custom
house officer, have all to be reckoned with, and if the farmer can come out at the end of the year with a whole skin and something to spare he is a lucky man. During the last few years when prices were good, the average farmer had a margin over, and no man ever deserved a margin better. If it was within the power of the Government to regulate the prices of produce so that the farmer would always get a fair reward for his hard work, no fairminded man could object. I submit, however, that in so far as the exportable surplus is concerned, no Government has ever yet been successfpl in fixing prices by legislation, and any attempt to do so has not only been futile but mischievous. There are certain laws of commerce with which an experienced law maker will not attempt to interfere. When less of an article is produced than is consumed, the very scarcity will make the price high enough and no legislation will be necessary. When a country produces more than is consumed at home, and there is a surplus for export, the price at home is controlled by the price abroad, and legislation can have no effect Whatever on prices. When the price of hides went down last year directly affecting the profits of Canadian farmers, the cause arose not in Canada, but in countries outside of Canada, such as the United States and the Argentine Republic. When the price of wool tumbled, you had to go to Australia to seek the cause. How, let me ask, could the business of these countries be controlled by legislation in Canada ? The case only needs to be mentioned to show that the proposal to fix the prices of our exportable surplus by legislation is absurd. We have a recent example of an attempt at price-fixing in the neighbouring-colony of Newfoundland. The price of fish was falling, and the people appealed to the Government to avert the impending-calamity. The Government stepped in and fixed the price at $8 per quintal and forbade all purchases or sales below that price. The merchants bought the fish from the fiisherman at the price fixed by the Government, and for a few months, all went well. But the fish had to be sold abroad, and customers in the West Indies, Europe and the United States refused to pay the price fixed by the Newfoundland Government. The consequence was that the merchants could not dispose of the fish. The warehouses were soon filled. The merchants kept on buying as long as they could., They

used up all their own capital and then borrowed from the banks. But they could not dispose of their fish, the banks then demanded payment, the result was a financial crash involving the fishermen as well as the merchants, so that the attempt of the Newfoundland Government to fix the price of fish really did more harm than good. What happened in Newfoundland is bound to happen anywhere else should a similar attempt be made. In the commerce of the world the law of supply and demand is just as inexorable as the tides or gravitation, and the public man who tells the people that he can successfully fix the price of our exportable surplus by legislation is either not well informed or is trying to work a green goods game on the farmer.
The suggestion has been made that the Government, through a commission, might purchase the crop and stabilize the price. But in buying and selling, risks must be taken and losses are inevitable. If the Government is to be responsible for the farmers' losses, then it must do the same for the fisherman, the lumberman, the miner, and the manufacturer. It would not in the end he to the advantage of the farmer if the Government were to assume a share of all the business risks of the nation. I do not wish to be understood as saying that the Government can do nothing to promote agriculture. I am only throwing out a word of warning against the nostrums of certain political agitators who are promising more than they can perform. The Government can do much by education; by improving transportation facilities; by regulating immigration so as to furnish a supply of farm labour; by lightening the farmers' burdens; by opening up wider and better markets for farm produce; by encouraging co-operation, and in many other ways. But the farmer, if he gets a fair chance, can always do more for himself than the Government can do for him-and, after all, the most important thing the Government can do for the farmer at the present time is to get off his back.
Too much cannot be said in favour of cooperation, but co-operation has nothing to do with politics. Marketing produce is business, and the experience is that the most expensive and inefficient concern in the world to do business is the Government. Mr. "Speaker, if there is any proposal by which the interests of our great basic industry can be advanced, it is bound to meet with a sympathetic response from the great Liberal party. But as I have said, the forces of progress, if they are to succeed,

must show a united front. Our opponents are united. They have the prestige of the old Liberal-Conservative party. They have the patronage, and in these days of hard times and lavish expenditure the patronage in the hands of unscrupulous men counts for much. They have a Franchise Act which will be run on strictly party lines and administered by partisan officers. The Government party is composed of men entrenched in special privileges who will fight desperately to maintain those privileges. They have also the sinews of war. Where do you find the wealth of the country? Do you find it in the Liberal party?- Do you find it among the farmers, or in the ranks of labour? Who are the railway magnates in this country? Are they Liberals? The manufacturers of Canada, according to the last Year Book, are said to control a capital investment of $2,786.649,727. Some of these are Liberals, but the great mass of them are the old type of high-tariff Conservatives, and some of those who were once Liberals are falling, I am sorry to say, into the procession. Who are the great bankers and the heads of the big trust companies? Do you find them crowding into the Liberal party and endorsing the platform built at Ottawa in 1919? Take the House of Commons itself. Glance among the supporters of the Government, and I supose you can count a dozen millionaires grouped around and behind the Prime Minister. Look along the benches to your left, Mr. Speaker. Do you find wealthy men? There may be one or two, but they are as scarce as the righteous men were in Sodom in the olden days. My point is this: that with the big business and the wealth and the Franchise Act and the patronage all ranged on one-side, it is absolutely essential that the common people should stand together and show a united front. The Allies smashed the Germans because they stood firmly together. Each had special questions to be dealt with, but they kept these in the background until they broke the power of the common enemy. Here is a lesson for the forces of Liberalism in Canada. Let us all unite for the coming struggle, and after .we break down the oligarchy that is now in control it will be time enough to adjust any differences that may exist between the two great wings of progressive thought in this country. It is very desirable, of course, that in a great agricultural country like Canada we should have as many farmers as possible in Parliament, but they should come here as representatives of all

a half he carried on as Minister of Agriculture. Then he resigned his portfolio and crossed the floor of the House, seven or eight of his friends from Western Canada crossing with him. With the exception of two, every one of those hon. members, who sit around him, was elected on that manifesto. One of those two is the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. J. F. Reid), who was elected as an Independent . and who, therefore, has a perfect right to choose where he will sit in this House, and the other is the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould), who was elected at a byelection in October, 1919, and who, as admitted by himself, sits in this House today as an instructed delegate of fifteen men who hold his signed resignation. I want to know where these hon. gentlemen, who are going to vote on this amendment, got their mandate, bias ever one of them gone back to his constituents and asked for an endorsation of the position he holds in this House? Not one of them, not even their leader, the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), has done so. They have no mandate for the position they hold; yet, they expect to vote for this amendment, to vote a want of confidence in this Government and to say, that we who are supporting this Government have no mandate from our constituents to do so.
During the last two years we- in Western Canada have been looking for redistribution. If we get redistribution, the four western provinces will likely be I'epresent-ed in this House by twenty more members. .Saskatchewan should have five new members, and I know the people in my constituency want redistribution. I do not know what the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg), whose constituency is next to mine, thinks on the subject, but I know a very large number of the people in his constituency want redistribution, because his constituency is very large and unwieldy. I was surprised the other day when the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), speaking about redistribution^ said that he would be afraid to leave that matter to this Government to handle; that there would be gerrymandering. That is an old political party cry that we have heard for years and years, and I thought this new party was above all that; that it was blazing a new trail in this country and dropping all the old party cries, and' that we would hear no more of them. I believe this Government is quite as capable of giving us redistribution as any other Government that could be elected in Canada.

The other night the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) discussed the question of freight rates. The people of the West have no objection to paying their way, of paying their fair share of whatever it costs to run our railways, but we object to paying more than our share. I believe the sooner we can have a readjustment of those rates, the better it will be for the whole country and much better for the western provinces.
Let me now take up the question of the much-abused Wheat Board, and let me say right here that if any Government in Canada has ever passed a piece of legislation that has been of benefit to the farmers of Western Canada, it is the legislation constituting the Wheat Board. But when the Wheat Board was appointed, it was not accepted in that way. I will not say that our papers in Western Canada were unanimous in condemning, but the great majority of them condemned this Government from Monday morning until Saturday night for constituting the Wheat Board. They even went so far as to say that, in regard to those participation certificates-"anticipation certificates" they called them-they advised the farmer to get rid of them, dispose of them, sell them at anything he could get for them; that after this Government got rid of the Wheat Board, all the money that went into the farmers' pockets would never enrich them. The sad part of the matter is that many farmers disposed of their participation certificates at five, seven, ten cents a bushel to speculators, who reaped fortunes by buying them out. The other night, when the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) was speaking, he was asked what his attitude was during his election campaign with reference to the Wheat Board. He said that the Wheat Board was not in existence during his campaign, and he was supported in that by the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg).


Mr. GOULD:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I did not make the statement the hon. gentleman alleges.


Mr. ARGUE:: All I have to do is to turn up Hansard. Here it is:
Mr. Cowan: Is it not true that at the election in which the hon. member was elected he and every part of his constituency were opposed to the existence of a Wheat Board; that he fought it from beginning to end and that he was elected as an opponent of the Wheat Board?
Mr. Gould: That is another bugaboo. I do not think the hon. gentleman can find in Assiniboia any sentiment whatever in that direction.
I will give to the House this evidence-

Mr. Cowan: That is not the point at all. The point is that my hon. friend was elected straight on that platform and nothing else.
Mr. Maharg: There was no Wheat Board in existence then.
Mr. Cowan: Yes, there was.
Mr. Maharg: Not on your life.


Oliver Robert Gould: My point of order was
that the hon. gentleman alleged J said there was no Wheat Board in existence.
I made no such statements and Hansard proves it.


Ira Eugene Argue: I will continue the quotation:
Mr. Gould: The hon. gentleman is mixed as to his facts. I might tell the House that not on any of the many platforms on which I stood during my whole election was the Wheat Board mentioned-


Oliver Robert Gould: Hear, hear.


Ira Eugene Argue: I say that to-night as an hon. member of this House.


Ira Eugene Argue: When we look up the records of that election we find that the Wheat Board was one of the burning questions before the people of that constituency. They were told that this Government had appointed the Wheat Board and that the farmers were losing in consequence anywhere from ten to forty cents a bushel on their wheat. That was in October, 1919. What were they saying in 1920 about the Wheat Board? All hands were up for a Wheat Board in 1920, after the Board had gone out of existence. As my hon. friend from Springfield (Mr. Richardson) used to say, it was a case of "You're damned if you do, and damned if you don't."


Oliver Robert Gould: May I ask the hon. gentleman if he can produce any evidence to support his statement that the Wheat Board was made an election issue in my campaign? I absolutely deny it.


Ira Eugene Argue: I am not prepared to say whether, had the Wheat Board been in existence this year, it would have made any difference in the price of wheat at the terminal elevators. But one thing I do know, and that is it would have stabilized the price at the country elevators. When the Wheat Board was in existence, after the farmer had done this threshing he knew how many bushels of wheat he had, knew what grade it was, and knew to a cent what it was worth at his station. He could go to his banker and say: I have so many bushels of wheat out on my farm, and I want so much money to carry it till the ground freezes, so that I can get on
with my fall work; when I market my wheat I will pay you off. But how coufd that be done this year? There was no Wheat Board in existence this year. Take my own little city of Swift Current. Nine miles west of us is Beverley with two elevators. Now I have seen farmers haul their wheat past Beverley into Swift Current and make fifteen cents a bushel. Then nine miles south is Dunelm on the Vanguard line. I have seen farmers haul their wheat past Dunelm into Swift Current, and make eighteen cents a bushel on the same grade of wheat.
Then, there is the question of trackage price and street price. When I sold my wheat there was eleven cents difference between the trackage price and the street price. Now all the elevator man had to do when a man came in with a load of wheat was to pay eleven cents less for it than it was worth on the track. The farmer must sell his wheat, because he must have money to buy coal and provisions for his family. The elevator man would pay him eleven cents less than it was worth on the track, and the next day he would put it through the elevator and load it on the car and sell it for eleven cents more than he paid for it. These are the things which are disturbing the farmers of the West. We are not satisfied with our grain handling system, and we are asking that the Government appoint a commission to investigate the whole matter and take control not only of the terminal elevators but of all the individual elevators up and down the line. We want to know how many hundreds of thousands of bushels of No. 1 Northern the elevators buy, and how many they sell. We want to know that with respect also to No. 2, No. 3, No. 4 and No. 5. We want to know how much they make out of what they call the promotion of grade. We want to know how many thousands of bushels they have left in their elevators at the end of the season, and what becomes of it. If you take up any of the reports of the elevator companies, you will not find the overages mentioned, and there is nothing to show what they have made by the promotion of grade. What we are asking the Government to do is to appoint a commission to make a thorough investigation of the wheat handling system, and ascertain the best system of handling wheat from the time it leaves the producer until it gets to the consumer.
Mr. JOHN A. CAMPBELL (Nelson) : Mr. Speaker, before I commence my re-



marks on the Address I wish to extend, as others have done before me, my very sincere personal congratulations to the Prime Minister in having attained the highest office in the gift of the people. In some respects I may differ from him in matters of policy, but personally I sincerely congratulate him and wish him every success. I also wish to extend my felicitations to the mover and the seconder of the Address. I had not the pleasure of listening to their remarks, but according to statements made regarding them their speeches were not only a credit to themselves, but did honour to their constituencies.
I have listened to a number of the speeches on both sides of the House in this debate, and have read some others, and I have been struck by the fact that there has been very little in the way of enunciation of party policies in any of the speeches so far delivered. That applies not only to the speeches of the leaders, but to those of their followers. The speech from the Throne contained a clause, outlining the Government's policy on the tariff question. For what purpose that was inserted I do not know. However, I do not think it was a bad idea. Probably the Government thought they might get some idea of where the members of the House stood on this question before they brought down their policy in connection with the Budget. If that was the idea, they must have been disappointed for there has been very little definite statement of tariff views so far. The leader of the Opposition (Mr. King), followed the seconder of the Address, and ignored the tariff problem, in fact, ignored practically everything that was in the speech from the Throne. He raised the question of a great constitutional crisis, and claimed the Government had no mandate to continue in office. The Prime Minister, in reply, devoted his attention entirely to rebutting and refuting, in his opinion at any rate, the statements made by his opponent. Shortly afterwards, the leader of the Progressive party discussed the points already raised, and to some extent outlined his policy and that of his party. Up to that time his speech was the only one in which the policy of any of the parties had been outlined to any extent. The followers of the different parties naturally took their cue from their leaders, and the result is that the definite laying down of party policies has hitherto been notable by its absence.
I gather from the speeches already delivered that there were in the main two
[Mr Campbell.]
questions raised; first, the question of confidence or otherwise in the Government, and secondly, the tariff question. Before discussing these questions, I should like to direct attention of the House for a moment or two to my position in this House.
It may possibly not have escaped your attention, Sir, that since last session I have crossed the green carpet and now occupy a position on the side opposite the Government. I do not know that that fact is of any particular significance. I have not changed my policy nor my ideas politically by doing so. It may be simply a question of expediency or form. For the first year of the term I occupied a position directly in front of you, Sir. I chose what subsequently became known as the cross benches, in the first instance, for physical reasons, because it was a position from which I could both see and hear better than I could from any other part of the floor available, for neither my sight nor my hearing is particularly good. During that session the work of the Gove moment was entirely or almost entirely concerned with carrying on the war, and I supported it throughout. Before the second year commenced the war had fortunately ended, and during that year not only was the Government concerned with questions arising out of the war, but it took up some matters which might be considered as having no direct connection with the war. That may be a matter of opinion. However, one such matter was the tariff and another the question of taking over certain railways. In this connection I found that it was necessary for me to differ from the Government, because I did not approve of their policy so far as the tariff was concerned. And subsequently, in the second session when the matter of railway legislation came up and we were considering the taking over of the Grand Trunk and the Grand Trunk Pacific, while I approved of the policy- there seemed to be nothing else to do under the circumstances-still I felt compelled to differ from the Government in one respect, namely, as to certain of the terms of the agreement, in which connection I moved an amendment. I am satisfied that my atitude was right, and I have every reason to believe that some at least of the members of the Government were thoroughly in accord with me. It was during that time that the cross benches began to take on political significance. Some of those' who held similar

views to mine were there, and others of like mind joined us, while some of those who did not share our opinions moved away. Then we came to this Chamber, where the seats are differently arranged and last year I occupied a seat on the other side. So far as I can recollect the only question of moment on which I really differed from the Government was the question of policy involved in the Budget;
1 found that I was not in accord and had to vote against them. So this year, on coming to the House I decided that it was but fair not only to myself but to the Government that I should take up a position somewhat apart and act in such a way as I thought would be advisable in the interests of the country.
This does not mean that I differ from the Government now any more than I did in the past. It is quite probable however that my ideas will be found to be at variance with those of the Government in connection with the tariff. It may be that in the Budget to be brought down certain amendments may be made which will enable me to vote for the proposals. I can only say that I shall give them the benefit of any doubt. I am quite unrepentant so far as votes I have given are concerned. I am satisfied that they were right, and in some cases my stand will be shown to have been right. In other instances there is and always will be room for debate. I have no desire to see a change in government just at the present moment that would produce unnecessarily chaotic conditions.
As I mentioned before, the question of the tariff has been introduced in a clause in the Address. This, I understand, is somewhat unusual. It was intended, presumably, that the matter should thereby be open for discussion and it was a case of the Government's nailing its colours to the mast. I am not in favour of the principle of protection; I do not mind making that statement strongly and emphatically. It might be argued from that assertion that it would be necessary for me to oppose the Government and support the amendment to the motion which is now before the House. What I shall do remains to be seen; but I do not think that such is a necessary inference from my statement. At this particular time it is proper for us all to get away as far as possible from terminology and technicalities and try to get at the heart of things; and so far as I can make out the terms in connection with t]ie tariff are not well defined, and
24 i
people may and do think alike who are under different banners and call themselves by different names. The principle of protection, is not the main question before the House at this time; I make that statement, although I may be misunderstood in doing so. I had almost said it was not an issue; I am not prepared to go so far, but it is not an issue of immediate concern. I do not wish to be misunderstood and I shall therefore try to make my position perfectly clear. When the debate on the railway question was in progress, I had the temerity to state that the question of public ownership was not an issue at that time. I thought so then and I think so now. I am satisfied that there were members on the Government side who all supported the Government's stand in that respect who were absolutely opposed to the principle of public ownership. That was a case where of necessity the Government had to do something; they had to become public owners whether they wished to do so or not; and therefore I say that the fundamental principle was not really at stake. I was satisfied at that time that if members of the Government had had placed before them any kind of reasonable offer from any private concern to take over those railways, that offer would have been accepted with celerity. And I think so yet.
In this case I am not prepared to go so far; but I say that the main business of the House at the present time is not to decide the principle of protection, but to deal with the tariff as it stands with a view to simplifying it, removing certain irregularities and passing upon certain matters in connection therewith regarding which, I think, not only those opposed to the principal of protection but those who are in favor of it are agreed. There are on the other side of the House and on the Opposition side to my right, members who, I think, have policies in this connection ranging all the way from free trade to moderate protection if that is a proper term. I do hot know that there are any absolute free traders in the House, though theoretically there may be; but there are some who come pretty near it; so, eliminating the high protectionists, of whom there are some on both sides of the House, the remainder go all the way from free trade to moderate protection. I have been talking to some recently who have been known as strong protectionists all their days, and I was surprised to learn that they thoroughly agree with me, or I with them as the case may be, as to what is necessary

and advisable, in the interests of the country, to do with the tariff' at the present time; and there are many things upon which this House can agree in regard to the tariff before we come to the question of disposing of the absolute principle. For instance, we might direct our attention to the elimination of the duties in connection with industries that do not really need the benefit of any tariff at the present time; and there are such in Canada.
There are other industries which, even from their own standpoint, do not need as much protection as they are receiving at the present time, a fact that is well known.
Then comes the question of reducing the tariff on necessities and on the instruments of production to the minimum and, in some cases, the elimination altogether of the existing duties. This involves the question of giving the most encouragement to those industries which are indigenous to Canada, as against those of an adventitious nature, thus helping to develop the natural resources of which we hear so much.
The question, Mr. Speaker, is where does the House stand in respect to these matters? The position of the Prime Minister is clear and distinct-he is emphatically out for protection presumably similar to what we now have. The leader of the Opposition has not, this year, stated what his policy is; but one of his followers this afternoon announced that the Liberal party was standing on the platform of 1919. It is pretty clear what that platform is, but there is sometimes a question in my mind whether all the members of the Opposition to my right are supporting it in its entirety. The leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Crerar) has enunciated his platform on the tariff and I think that it is also clear and distinct. In connection with the statement made by my hon. friend (Mr. Crerar) on the tariff, the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Henders) took the ground that the leader of the Progressive party had not clearly stated his position. Well, that is a matter of opinion. Personally, I am inclined to think that my hon. friend from Marquette made a very clear-cut statement. At any rate, I am satisfied that I know where he stands, just as well as I know what the policy of the Prime Minister is on this question. But I must say that my hon. friend from Macdonald did not state his own views on this particular problem. Now I have been informed that the hon. member for Macdonald had some part to play in the formation of the platform on which the leader of the Progressive 
party now stands. That being so, I presumed that my hon. friend was thoroughly familiar with the Progressive platform; in fact that he supported it himself; but tha< appears not to be the case. If I am mis taken in this assumption, my hon. friend from Macdonald will correct me.
As I stated previously, some of the members of this House who are pronounced protectionists have intimated to me that the tariff is running amuck; that the present schedules are not really operating in the interest of those Canadian industries which it is intended to protect and foster. I am inclined to agree with these hon. gentlemen in that respect.
In connection with amendments proposed consideration should first be given to duties on the necessities of life. As already pointed out, there is not much difference of opinion as to the desirability of doing this, and there should be none. The duties on these necessities should be reduced to a minimum and in many respects eliminated altogether. The duties on textiles have often been discussed in this Chamber. I will not do more, at the present time, than refer to the enormous profits which the Dominion Textile Company has been able to make during the last few years. That company should need no assistance from the people.
A couple of days ago a memorandum was given to me with respect'to an industry in Canada, the product of which might properly be classed as a necessity. I refer to the paint industry. The memo in question was given to me by a strong protectionist, a Conservative. I will only read part of it:
Sherwin-Williams Co. Optimistic about Paint Industry.
The sales of Sherwin-Williams Co. for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31 show a total of $75,952,000 which is a gain of $22,000,000 over the banner year of 1919. Comparison of the sales of $'51,817,000 for the American Companies alone with the $36,992,000 of the previous year shows a gain of 40 per cent.
According to the balance sheet the company has current assets of $27,679,859 compared with current liabilities of $6,636,738. It has $992,855 in the cash account, and inventory of $15,814,260. During the year a stock dividend of 50 per cent was declared so that the surplus account shows $4,481,667 this year compared with $7,175,311 a year ago.
Attached to the memo is a clipping from a newspaper. It contains a New York despatch intimating that there is a combine between the white lead men in connection with the output of paint.


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: Is the hon.
gentleman quoting the figures .of the

Sherwin-Williams Paint Company of United States, or the Sherwin-Williams Paint Company of Canada? They are of course two different companies.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: The figures I have
given from the quotation seem to include both companies. The point I wish to make


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: My hon. friend
must know that the two companies are quite different, and I hope he will have the justice to say, when he is quoting such figures, whether they relate to the American or the Canadian company. As my hon. friend quoted the figures, the House would be led to believe that they had reference to the Canadian company.


John Archibald Campbell: I did not know, Mr. Speaker, that the two companies are entirely and distinctly separate. I understood they were affiliated companies, and that one was merely a branch of the other.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Oh, no.


John Archibald Campbell: I understood in quoting the figures of the business done that they related not only to the American but also to the Canadian company. However, the point I wish to make is this: The paint industry seems to be very prosperous both in the United States and in Canada, and this particular company is doing a very large and extensive business, and realizing excellent profits, in both fields of activity. In my opinion, as well as in the opinion of the well informed gentleman who handed me this memo, the protection which is afforded to this company is beyond all bounds and a great deal more than what is necessary to fully protect the industry even if such protection were advisable.
There remains for me to deal with the question of the removal of the duties, or at any rate a very material reduction in the duties, on the instruments of production. I shall confine my attention at the present time merely to those required for the agricultural and mining industries. It was mentioned in a speech the other day that the average tariff on agricultural implements is very low. Again in this House this afternoon it was stated that generally speaking the average tariff is very much lower than it has been. ,	. ~
I am not concerned very much, Mr. Speaker, regarding average tariffs; I do not think that is a fair way of arriving at their incidence. To my mind the better way is to take specific instances, and then
we know exactly where we are at. Re- ' garding agriculture, notwithstanding the statement that the average tariff is very low-I forget the figures quoted-I find that some implements used in connection with agriculture are taxed as follows: Harvesters, partly complete, 121 per cent; ploughs, cultivators and drills, 20 per cent; grain crushers and fanning mills, 25 per cent; gasoline engines, 27 or 30 per cent-I am not quite sure which; the humble wheel-barrow pays a duty of about 30 per cent; Ford cars and carriages are subject to a duty of 35 per cent. With respect to the Ford car, I do not think any hon. member will say that it is a luxury; at any rate, it has not hitherto been looked upon as such; but the duty of 35 per cent is certainly excessive and should be materially reduced, if not eliminated altogether. Agricultural producers have the above handicaps to contend with.
Contrary to what has been ferquently stated, mining machinery and utensils intimately connected with mining are not free. It is true that mining machinery and such utensils as I have mentioned are free when they are used in connection with iron and steel and associated industries. But why they should be admitted free when used by any particular industry and be subject to duty when not so used passes my comprehension. This is a matter which I simply wish to draw to the attention of the Government. In some cases machinery is admitted free. For instance, machinery for dredging gold is on the free list, as are also briquetting machinery, machinery for the manufacture of rifles, machinery for the manufacture of ship plates, and other kinds of machinery; but when we come down to the tools of the prospectors who make the original discoveries of our natural resources, we find there is a duty ranging from 22! to 30 per cent. This duty, it is true, is not exacted when machinery and tools in connection with mining are imported for universities, endowed or otherwise, but when the ordinary prospector, who is not by any means a man of means, desires to buy tools for his work he has to pay the duties I have mentioned. Then I wish to draw the attention of the Government to the rates of duty on complicated and newly invented machinery, and I will mention only two or three varieties:	Gyrating
crushers, 27! per cent; machinery for removing the overburden in connection with

mineral deposits, very important in mining', 271 per cent; gasoline locomotives, also very important instruments in mining development, 35 per cent. I submit to the Government that if they are anxious to relieve the burdens on the people at the present time, and to encourage that development of our natural resources about which we hear so much, such duties as I have named should be either removed altogether or reduced to the very minimum.
The other question to which the attention of this House has been directed for some time is that of the confidence or othe>
wise which this Parliament and the country have in the Government. I may not be a constitutional authority, but so far rs I can see this Government, constitutionally, cannot be called usurpers; they are rot in the position of overholding tenants by any means. Constitutionally, they are entitled to hold office just as long as they have a majority in this House, which will be put to the test shortly. However, there are two other points involved; one is as to the agreement or understanding reached by the members of the Government at the time the Coalition Government was formed in 1917, and the other is the present attitude and feeling of the people towards the Government.
I agree with the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean)-a former member of this Government-who spoke a few days ago. The hon. gentleman was on the inside in connection with the formation of the Coalition Government; I was very much on the outside. He knew exactly what transpired, and he has given his report in respect to that, and his opinion as to what should be done, and I see no reason why I should take issue with him thereon. As to my position, there was no contest in the constituency of Nelson, and with the exception of a few speeches of a semi-political nature at the time of nomination we heard none in the constituency during the period of the campaign, and I did not take part in the campaign in any other constituencies. However, I gained the impression at that time that the Government was formed for the period of the war and for such time thereafter as would be necessary" to clear up matters particularly pertaining to the war, and I think my constituents had the same idea. It is true that, technically, the Coalition Government did come to an end when the new Government headed by the right, hon. the new Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) was formed, but I can only consider his Government as the

direct successor of the Coalition Government.
However, in my opinion, the question is larger than that presented by speakers who have preceded me. I am inclined to think that it is not simply a question of whether the Government should give up office at the present time or not, but whether the whole Parliament should come to an end. We see statements in the papers that this Parliament-I do not refer to one side or the other, but to both sides of the House-is unrepresentative, unresponsive, moribund and stale. These expressions may be somewhat exaggerated, but nevertheless there is an element of truth in them. Any election within the near future would mean a great change not only on the Government side, but on this side of the House. Many hon. members who were elected in 1917 were urged to give their services solely on account of the fact that a peculiar situation had arisen, and that it was necessary to get a certain type of men to take office. These hon. members now think their mandate has expired. Certain other hon. members who were then elected have been referred to as "compromise" candidates and were placed in the position which they now occupy by their electors with the distinct idea that when the term mentioned had elapsed political conditions would revert to normal.
In another respect, however, I differ very materially with the argument and statements made by my hon. friend from Halifax, in that I contend that redistribution is a very important matter to be considered at the p resent time. While I am of opinion that there should be an election, not immediately, but before another session of the House, this should not be held until redistribution has taken place. There should be an election soon, but there should be redistribution sooner. The hon. member for Halifax gave his case away- perhaps inadvertently-when he said that the question of redistribution involved an increase of representation in certain parts of the country, and it necessarily followed that the representation would decrease in other parts of the country. I do not know that that necessarily follows, but in all probability it will be the result of increased representation in any one part of the country.
Without redistribution there will not be proper representation. For instance, let us assume that there are two constituencies of equal population, and that within ten years one half of one of those constituencies

should move into another:	If there were
no redistribution, it would necessarily follow that the votes of the electors left in the first constituency would have three times the value of the votes of the electors in the second constituency. Of course, that may be a far-fetched case, but there are instances where such results obtain in Canada. I know constituencies which have fifty thousand or sixty thousand electors and others with only twenty thousand or thirty thousand.
It is generally the case, Mr. Speaker, that when changes are suggested, hon. members look for precedents. If we are to look for precedents for the holding of an election on or about the time of the taking of the census -the decennial period-we find that during the last three decades elections have taken place without such redistribution, very close to the times at which the census returns were made. I refer to the following elections: March 5, 1891; November 7, 1900; September 21, 1911. These precedents, perhaps, are against my contention, but the fact is they are such that we do not wish to follow them at the present time or at any time in the future. They are precedents that it is a good thing to get away from; I cite them merely to point out that they should not be followed. In these instances a great injustice was perpetrated on certain parts of the country by the holding of elections at these particular times.
Then, Mr. Speaker, there is a local reason why I think there should be redistribution before an election. The constituency of Nelson is very large. It is approximately
200,000	miles in extent, being about four times as large as all the rest of Manitoba put together. It is in two separate and distinct parts: the southern part, by far the smaller portion, namely, the Swan River Valley, is composed almost entirely of fertile agricultural lands and settled by prosperous farmers, and the northern part, the great stretch of the northland, where almost every industry but farming is carried on. I might say here that this district has capabilities for farming, but these have not yet been brought into operation. Between the centre of the Swan River District and the southern edge or gateway to the great north, between the town of Swan River and The Pas, there is a stretch of railway of two hundred miles-we have to go out into Saskatchewan and back into Manitoba. The electors in the different ends of the constituency think they have no community of interest; they think that in the interests of the whole constituency they should be placed
in different ridings. I am here to represent the views, as far as possible, of those who sent me here. I simply place this matter before the House, not as the main reason, but as an incidental and important reason why I think as I do in this connection.
Now, I propose to place before this House a concrete proposal. I think there is a way whereby we can have both a redistribution and an election. The last speaker intimated that the electors in his district were very strong for redistribution. I think that is a feeling which prevails throughout the whole of the West, also, that the West is pretty strongly in favour of an election; I can come to no other conclusion, notwithstanding statements made here to the contrary, and I am now inclined to think that the East largely entertains the same view. What I suggest, then, is that this House proceed with the necessary business of the session; that it pass whatever legislation may be in the interests of the country at this time; that an adjournment be then made until early fall, and that in the meantime the census be expedited, especially in respect to such returns as are absolutely necessary for the Redistribution Bill. When the House meets in the fall the Redistribution Bill could then be put through, and, as soon as might be thereafter, an election should be held. This would cover the objections raised by various parties to an election without redistribution. With this whole scheme in view, I shall take up the different suggestions in. a little more detail.
I say that the House should proceed with the business of the session; by this I mean not only the extremely urgent business, but such business as may be necessary at this time in the interests of the country. I would not exclude the amendments to the tariff which the Government, I understand, intend to bring down. In fact, I think that it is very important that these tariff proposals should be submitted. If they are brought down-and that is another reason why I wish things to continue as they are for the time being, at any rate-we shall have something definite and concrete in the way of a tariff placed before the House; we shall get a definite idea as to where the different members on both sides really stand. I am not afraid of the issue, and I do not know that any other hon. member is afraid of it. It has been suggested that some are not travelling exactly under the right colours. However, if certain definite proposals are placed before us we shall

know absolutely where the different parties stand; the House and the country will know the policy of the Government, of the Opposition, and of the Progressive party.
I have suggested that after the necessary legislation is put through there should be an adjournment until early fall, not another session. There are precedents for that also. Long adjournments of the Canadian House are mentioned in Bourinot as follows: 1867 to 1868, from the 21st December to the 12th of March, to enable the Government to consider and complete measures. No more important issues were at stake then than are before us at .the present time.	There was an
adjournment in 1873, from the 23rd of May to the 13th of August, to receive the report of the Royal Commission on the Canadian Pacific Railway scandal. The fact is that the House prorogued on the 13th of August without receiving the report; but that does not alter the precedent in any way. The House adjourned from the 23rd of December, 1880, to the 4th of January, 1881, in connection with certain issues relating to the Canadian Pacific contract. In 1911 there was an adjournment from the 19th of May to the 18th of July to enable Sir Wilfrid Laurier to attend the Imperial Conference and the coronation. Notwithstanding the fact that the question of reciprocity was very strongly before the people at that time, the House adjourned for two months. These, precedents are very much to the point, and I think it is fair to say that the issue before the House at present is fully as important as the issues which gave occasion for any of these adjournments. There is in connection with the last adjournment mentioned another degree of similarity, namely, that the Prime Minister and his associates wish to attend the Imperial Conference very shortly. In order that this session may continue at the time I have mentioned, it may be necessary to expedite to some extent the compiling of such portions of the census returns as are necessary for the purpose of bringing down a Redistribution Bill, not generally speaking to quicken up the returns. I am advised by the census authorities that by September sufficient data can be gathered to allow of a Redistribution Bill being drafted, and by the time that this House will need to meet all the returns will be ready. At a reasonable time after the redistribution Bill has been dealt with and passed, a dissolution of Parliament may take place and an election

be held before another session. In his speech the other day the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) accepted the challenge of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) saying in effect: "We are not afraid of an election we desire it as much as you, but we want redistribution first." In fact, I think the general tenor of the remarks of hon. gen-tlement opposite was that they would be glad to have an election, to meet the party to my right or my left, at any time provided redistribution comes first. My proposition would thus appear to be a solution of the difficulties of hon. members on all sides of the House; it is sound, sane, feasible, and, if I may use a word which is somewhat overworked, constructive, and also it is what the country is looking for just now. In order, therefore, to put the matter into definite shape before this House, so that the House will have an opportunity to pass upon it, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Neepawa (Mr. Davis), an amendment to the amendment moved by the leader of the Opposition as follows:
That all words after "that" in the amendment be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
Existing political conditions call for redistribution, and a general election at an early date thereafter, and that this Parliament should proceed forthwith to pass such legislation as may be necessary, at this time, in the interests of the country and then be adjourned to the earliest date at which the census returns will be available, for the purpose of making the necessary changes in the Representation Act; and that a general election be held as soon thereafter as possible; and, further, that the work of taking the census and completing such returns as may be necessary for the redistribution for the representation be expedited so far as practicable.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I do not call in question the form of the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member (Mr. Campbell), but put it to the House subject to more careful inquiry during the dinner hour.


Mr. WILLIAM JOHN BLAIR (Battle River) :: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that it is necessary for me to take up the time of the House in further congratulating the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) on his elevation to that high office. I have already done that personally. I would, however, like to add my congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the Address on the able manner in which they performed their duty.
My intention in taking part in this debate is to touch upon two matters, both of which

are of political importance to Western Canada. The first to which I wish to refer is the matter of bringing on a general election at this time. In the year 1911 an election was sprung upon us just as the census figures were being completed, and for six years, from 1911 to 1917, the province from which I come was represented in this House by seven members instead of twelve, and a similar condition would no doubt arise again if an election were held before redistribution took place. The mover of the amendment (Mr. Mackenzie King) has been recently through the West, and I think he will agree with me when I say that, as leader of his party, he has very little to hope for from the West. To bring on an election at this time would be taking an unfair advantage of particularly the four western provinces. Of recent months, I have been through my constituency a number of times, and I must admit there has been a demand for an election, but only from those who were opposed to this Government in the first place, and particularly from those who were opposed to this Government's war policy. I have not heard of a demand for an election from the Liberals who supported me and who were many; I have not heard of it from the Conservatives who supported me, and there were many of them too. The fact of the matter is that the people in the province of Alberta are not wasting very much time in thinking about party politics; they are attending to their business and going ahead as best they may.	.
The question which I want to deal with particularly and which seems to me of greater importance to the three Prairie Provinces than anything that has as yet been discussed in this House, is the matter of handling the farmer's grain. I need not state that agriculture is now and probably always will be the great industry of those three provinces, and grain growing is the most important branch of agriculture. At the outset I want to say that I agree with the remarks and the suggestions made by the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Henders) in the latter part of the speech which he made in this House the other day. Everything he said in connection with that subject is the truth, but I want to remind the hon. member that he did not, by any means, tell the whole truth. Indeed, I do not know that there is in this House a member who is fully and well-enough informed upon the subject of handling grain and the disabilities under which the farmers operate to be capable of telling
the whole story. We get small threads of it here and there; we hear rumours, many of which are no doubt true; but they have not been established, and they have not been referred to particularly in this House. Of course, any disability under which the farmer suffers pertains somewhat also to the consumer; but, as is most other lines, the man who is at the primary point of production is the first man to suffer from those injustices. I regret many of those who represent constituencies in the eastern pro-inces are not more fully acquainted with the methods by which grain is handled in Western Canada.
I would like to speak particularly on how completely the farmer is at the mercy of the grain dealer. When you consider that his grain is threshed and harvested and marketed, sometimes as far east as Fort William, in the course of a very few weeks, you can see that a good deal of the work that is done cannot be closely supervised, and the first opportunity the grain dealer has to " get " the farmer is the minute he drives his wagon load of wheat upon the scales of the country elevator. These scales are owned and controlled by the grain dealer, and are operated by one of his employees. A few days before I left my home, my nearest neighbour drove off the scales of a well-known elevator company in our town to the scales of another elevator company, and found there was a difference of eight bushels between the time he left the one company and got to the other. Now that eight-bushel loss means that the farmer was losing from ten to twenty per cent of his wheat, and at this point there will probably ,be marketed this year $1,500,000 of grain. So if all the companies are as dishonest as the one to which I refer attempted to be, there will be a loss of anywhere from $100,000 to $300,000 for the farmers in that way alone, at that one point; and that is only one of thirty-five shipping points in the constituency I represent.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


William John Blair: When the
House rose at six o'clock I was referring to the methods of some of the grain companies that are operating at country points in the Prairie Provinces. I had mentioned the fact that it had been reported to me that a farmer had driven his load of grain

from one elevator to another and found in doing so that it had increased some eight bushels in weight. That meant probably from 10 to 20 per cent of the value of the whole load of grain, and at the point where I live and market my grain it would mean from $100,000 to $300,000 per year that would be taken out of the farmers of that immediate district. There are in the riding in which I represent some 35 shipping points on the different lines of railway; so that it will be seen that if the Government proposes to do anything towards investigating this condition, the place at which to begin is the beginning, at the country elevators.
It would seem to me that a method could be easily devised to take the weighing away from the elevator companies and place the handling of it under the control and direction of Government officials. In addition to the weighing of the grain at the country elevators, the operator of the local elevator is also charged with the grading of grain under certain conditions, and this is where the small farmer particularly is squeezed. The small farmer who has less than a car-load of grain to ship drives up to the country elevator and is at the mercy of the operator, not only as regards the weighing of the grain, but so far as the grading as well is concerned. Grain sold in this way is refered to as street wheat, and as stated by the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Argue), there is no reason why there should be much difference between street wheat and track wheat offered on the market at Fort William. But at one point on one of the lines of railway in my riding there was a difference of as much as 47 cents a bushel between the street wheat and track wheat on one particular day this fall, and at a point within 35 miles of this very place on another line of railway some of the same companies were operating and paying for street wheat only about 20 or 22 cents less than track wheat. There was a combine undoubtedly amongst the elevators operating at the first point-there can he no question in the world about that-and that combine existed for the purpose of killing competitive buying. At the other point the ordinary methods of competitive buying were practised, and the farmers there were coming from greater distances, delivering their wheat and getting a square deal.
There is another phase of the question to which I want to refer, and that is the position in which the operator of the country elevator finds himself. He is an em-

ployee of these large companies, some of them very large indeed, and he is engaged on a salary and put under heavy bonds. He is charged with the responsibility of taking in the grain, weighing it out and grading it, and in many instances paying for it. If there is a bank, payment is made by 'cheque, and if there is not he has to pay in currency. He loads his wheat or other grain into the cars; it is delivered at Fort William and weighed from the cars into the terminal elevators. It is never made known to him during the whole operating season how the cars weigh out. They may be short or over, but the facts are never made known to him, and frequently at the end of the year, after everything is closed up, a representative of the elevator company comes along and without giving particulars, without telling him how these things happened, informs him that he is short, two, or three, or five hundred bushels, as the case may be, and the operator is ordered to make good the shortage. You can see the temptation that is placed in the way of an operator of a country elevator. If he desires to be honest he has the knowledge that this club may be continuously swung over his head. _
I might remind the House that during past sessions we have heard about screenings or dockage, and we got some rather interesting information a session or two ago before a special committee of this House known as the Cost of Living Committee. I would like to explain that if these screenings are under three per cent at Fort William they become the absolute property of the terminal elevator. If they are over three per cent they become the property of the farmer. Now the farmer pays for the threshing of the wheal; that he delivers to the country elevator and he pays there a cent and three quarters a bushel for handling it. He also pays the elevator a commission and he pays the freight. Yet at Fort William, when the screenings are three per cent or under the terminal elevator gobbles the whole thing without having paid one cent in the matter of production, transportation or anything else.


Mr. J. F. REID:: Who pays for the
cleaning of the screenings?


William John Blair: The terminal elevator, but
I would be very glad to go into the terminal elevator business myself if I could get such a concession as I have described. As I say, the farmer pays every other charge, and in two crop years during the war the.

price at the terminal elevator of these screenings was $35 a ton. That is a higher price than is being paid on the market to-day for No. 2 C.W. oats.


Mr. MAHARG:: Who regulates the
screenings; who makes the recommendations in connection with that matter?


William John Blair: It is perfectly legal, as
I understand, for the terminal elevator to take the three per cent.


John Archibald Maharg: My question was, who
makes the recommendation?


William John Blair: I do not know that that
matters. The point is that we want the whole thing investigated in order to bring out the facts. Now as to the matter of overages. That has been fully dealt with by the member for Macdonald (Mr. Hen-ders), and I do not propose to say much upon the subject. I have heard it argued that the terminal elevator should get the overages because it must pay for the shortages. Now I do not know of any more convincing way to answer that argument than to say that such a contention amounts to this:	Because the terminal
elevators pay for what they are caught stealing they should be allowed to get away with what they are not detected in stealing.
A great deal has been sa'id with respect to the Winnipeg Grain Exchange. Properly and honestly conducted, a grain exchange cannot be objected to. It is a legitimate place for buyers and for sellers, just as in the case of other commodities. But the Winnipeg Grain Exchange has become practically the whole channel through which our western wheat reaches the eastern miller and the buyer overseas. One rule that I believe exists with the Winnipeg Grain Exchange is objectionable. The member for Macdonald explained how the prices are fixed at country places. These prices are sent out by the North West Grain Dealers' Association each day, after having been fixed by an officer of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, and the rule to which I refer declares that any member of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange who is found paying a higher price than that authorized by its officer is doomed to expulsion from the organization.
I have had personal experience in this matter. On one occasion I sold three carloads of oats to a member of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange. He signed a contract on a certain date and I had the privilege of shipping these oats later on. When I was ready to ship the oats the price had
dropped. They were loaded through the elevator of a well-known grain company and immediately these oats were shipped they wrote and asked me why I had not sold my oats to them. I replied that I had been able to get a higher price than they were willing to pay me.
I immediately got a request for all papers and documents in connection with this transaction, but I refused to comply with the request and, so far as I know, the matter was dropped. But the point I want to make is that if these people are able to penalize the man who goes out into the open competitive market and buys from the farmer at a higher price than the price authorized at Winnipeg, they will do so if they can find a way.
I now want to say a word or two with reference to the Wheat Board. Like every other public institution that Board at one stage of its existence was extremely unpopular, and at another stage it became extremely popular. I am quite sure that if I had been in the hands of fifteen committee men in my riding in the year 1919 they would have enforced my resignation from this House. I am just as sure that if my resignation had then taken place, my successor would also have been re-called last fall because the Wheat Board was not re-established. The fact of the matter is that the unpopularity of the Wheat Board was the result of the persistent and systematic agitation carried out by men who wanted to knock this Government by any means they could employ for the purpose. These men went about the country and told the' people that the participation .certificates or the "anticipation" certificates were next to valueless, and I know one man in my own neighbourhood who, as a result of Hie agitation, took his certificates home and threw them into the stove. Other men sold them in great numbers for a price not greater than twenty-one cents a bushel. Eventually these certificates were redeemed by the Wheat Board at forty-eight cents a bushel. These agitators-and some of them were paid agitators-who went through the country working up this agitation for the sole purpose of knocking the present Government, through the Wheat Board, caused a loss to the farmers which aggregated hundreds and thousands and perhaps millions of dollars. They told the farmers that this Government was their enemy, but they awakened one day to find out that their real enemy was to be found right in their own organization. The Wheat Board rendered efficient and valuable service to the farmers of Western Canada, and I have

here a testimonial which I think ought to bear some weight with the members of this House. This testimonial was given by a member of the Wheat Board, it was given by the man who is the President of the United Farmers of Alberta, Mr. H. W. Wood; it was given at a public meeting attended by some two thousand farmers and the report of the proceedings appeared in a paper which is not always friendly to the present Government, the Edmonton Bulletin. This is a verbatim report from the Edmonton Morning Bulletin:
The Canadian Wheat Board during its existence saved the Canadian farmer 50 millions of dollars and I am certain that if it continues to sell their grain along the same lines as before its abolition by the Government that it would save the farmers of this country several millions more.
The Wheat Board in the past has rendered efficient service and there is no reason why it cannot be continued along efficient operative lines providing you get the right kind of men on the Board. But let me tell you this, just as soon as you get politics and inefficiency mixed up with it then give me the open market.
Now, I want hon. members to note the significance of Mr. Woods' statement. He stated that in handling the wheat crop alone $50,000,000 was saved to the farmers of Western Canada in one year. If the same efficie'ncy and the same good results had been secured from handling all the other grain, that is, the oats, flax, barley and rye, another $50,000,000 would have been saved; that would he $100,000,000, according to the testimony of Mr. H. W. Wood, who is not politically a friend of this Government. I want to emphasize that the ordinary charges made by the Wheat Board for commission, handling, freight, storage and insurance were not less than those under ordinary conditions. So it follows that, if the statement is correct, the farmers of Western Canada this year might have been saved an equal amount, and that in other years they were deprived of this amount of money by the grain dealers.
I think it would be well for the Government to investigate the means of marketing the Western grain when the saving may be so great as $100,000,000 a year. We have got into the habit of thinking in big figures, but let us consider for one minute what $100,000,000 would do. It would pay almost the interest on the national debt; it would build 400,000 miles of rural telephone line-that is worth considering-it would build 2,000 miles of railway; it would put under cultivation 10,000,000 acres of raw prairie land; it is more money than has already been loaned by the Soldiers Settlement Board and it

would pay the duty on all the agricultural implements imported into the Dominion in a period of sixty years.
I have referred to the spread between the street and track wheat and other grain. I have talked to some of those who are of the type I referred to at the beginning of my remarks, and who want an election. They will say that there was not much spread at points on the Canadian Pacific Railway-and they are not altogether wrong in saying so-but that generally speaking the spread was greater on the Grand Trunk Pacific and at Canadian Northern points. But I have the word of the president of one of the largest grain firms in Winnipeg to the effect that both the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National handled the western grain this last year better than it had ever been handled before, considering the volume of wheat that was going out. And again I am afraid that there is a little touch of politics in this criticism. It is a curious thing that the men who are to-day damning the Canadian National system are the' men who damned the Canadian Pacific for forty years. They have at last come to the conclusion that the Canadian Pacific Railway is a pretty good institution and that the Canadian National is all wrong.
I want to urge most strongly on the Government that they investigate every phase of the marketing of wheat and other grains from the time the farmer drives his wagon on the scales at the country elevator point to the time the grain reaches Liverpool or until it is handed into the mills in Eastern Canada. I have heard more complaint about the way our grain has been handled this last year, and especially since the farmers got acquainted with the efficiency of the Wheat Board, than I have heard concerning any other phase of the economic life of Western Canada, and I feel sure that if the Government conducts a thorough investigation to find out where the abuses are, and the remedy for those abuses, it will do a greater service to the grain growers of Western Canada than any other action that this Government has taken or can take or that any Government in the past has taken. Certainly the Government will render a greater service to the farmers of these three provinces than anything that has been suggested by our friends in either Opposition party. I hope that such an investigation as was proposed by the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Henders) will be proceeded with and that it will have concluded its labours in time to have the

results formulated before the next season's crop is harvested and ready for the market.


Mr. FRANCOIS JEAN PELLETIER (Matane):: Mr. Speaker, this being the eleventh day of the debate on the motion for the adoption of the Address and the amendment offered by my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), I feel that so much has been said in support of the amendment that there remains but very little for me to add unless I repeat the arguments already advocated. My hon. friend the leader of the Opposition asked by what authority my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) and the members of his Ministry presumed to carry on the Government. No reason has as yet been given by the Government and its supporters. It is unnecessary for me to repeat certain points at issue, they having been so well put before this House by my hon. friends the leader of the Opposition and the hon. members for Beauce (Mr. Beland), Gaspe and Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux), Brome (Mr. McMaster), St. James (Mr. Rin-fret), Wright (Mr. Devlin), Rimouski, (Mr. D'Anjou), Bellechasse (Mr. Fournier), and Halifax (Mr. Maclean), who have thoroughly explained every phase of the situation. I merely wish to state that I fully endorse all that these gentlemen have said, and I will therefore direct my remarks to other questions.
For a number of years past we have been told by social agitators from their soap boxes and even by so-called statesmen from their places in Parliament or on the public platforms that public ownership of utilities was the panacea for all the ills that affect the body politic. This theory was held up to us as being the greatest advance made in generations by a democratic government towards the full enjoyment by the people of their rights and privileges under the constitution. It may be, Sir, that public ownership in certain countries has increased the control of the people over their natural heritage, but I submit that in this country we have found that the taking over of the railways by the Government has had the contrary effect. In practice, instead of being for the benefit of democracy, public ownership has immeasurably increased the powers of autocracy. We have had a board appointed by the Government, without consultation of the people, and clothed with powers higher and more formidable than those enjoyed by the ministers themselves, answerable to no one, and in the present instance not only incapable of understanding the public mind but of taking part in the progressive ideas of the people. We cannot insist that one of its members be removed for incompetency; we cannot urge upon it that large sections of the country are being badly served by the national railway; we are not permitted to show that it is inefficient in organization and extravagant in operation. It can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that contracts are given to favorites of the directors, to the detriment of the railway; that certain sections of the country are granted privileges denied to other sections where the traffic receipts are higher; that in the only province wherein, as a matter of fact, the Government railroads can and do earn more than the cost of maintenance, we are treated with a total disregard of the convenience of the population with respect to returns and service. I shall touch upon this point a little later, Mr. Speaker.
I say that a Government controlled by a body such as this is not democratic, because we have placed ourselves in the hands of a body of men who are not now answerable and, if the intention of the Government is to be followed, never will be answerable to the people,-who may if they will, and do as a matter of fact, carry on the administration of this most important of our national undertakings with inefficiency, incompetency, extravagance and neglect, and that even though the people be groaning under the weight of repeated deficits. It is impossible for us to remove these gentlemen and so in some degree alleviate our financial embarrassment.
May I refer to Mr. Hanna's order preventing railway employees from becoming candidates in elections or taking any part in politics? I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that order is absolutely unfair to the railway employees. These men were compelled by the Government to become its employees when it took over the different railways; therefore it is through no fault of theirs if they are now in the employ of the Government, or of the Canadian National Railways. I fail to see why they should be now disfranchised by the Government or its creatures-and you will admit, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Hanna and other officials of the

National Railways are the Government's own creatures.
I said a few moments ago that certain sections of this country were granted privileges denied to other sections where the income is great. I shall refer to one division in particular, take the Montreal and Mont Joli division of the Intercolonial Railway; that division is showing a surplus while the other divisions on the same road are showing deficits. I may say that I repeatedly asked the construction of three subways under railway crossings at very dangerous places in my riding, and was refused all three-one at St. Octave, at a sharp curve; one at Little Metis Station, and one at Ste. Florence. If the officials would only take the trouble to have these places inspected, they would immediately see the justice of my requests.
Further, I asked certain officials of the Intercolonial Railway to prevent certain lumber merchants from piling lumber in the railway yards immediately east of the railway station at Amqui. My reason for making the request was because there were quite a number of residences in the immediate vicinity, the owners of which had to pay premiums for the insurance on their buildings at the same rate as that applicable to the lumber yards. That request also, was refused. Then, on the Montreal and Mont Joli division, why should we not have some men on the dining cars who can speak the French language? We are being asked repeatedly by travelling salesmen and others why we as members of the House cannot have this condition remedied.
The taking over of the railways was forced through this House by the Unionist Government and against the will of the Liberals comprising. His Majesty's loyal Opposition. We contended that Canada was practically bankrupt as a result of our participation in the Great War-and I will say, Mr. Speaker, that Canada's participation in the war did not create such a great national financial liability as did the railway policy involved in the creation of a national railway system. The war cost Canada about $1,800,000,000, while the outstanding indebtedness of the Canadian Northern, [DOT] Grand Trunk and Grand Trunk Pacific is admitted to be $1,000,000,000, but is really much more. To this must be added $300,000,000 for the National Transcontinental, and $150,000,000 for the Intercolonial, and then there are such other systems as the Hudson Bay Railway and the smaller non-paying roads. If interest on investment was computed and added, the total

cost of the National system to Canada would equal Canada's expenditure in the Great War. Canada has certainly paid for its railway debauch, but the worst is yet to come. Within three years the capital expenditure necessary for connecting links, replacements and equipment will absorb another hundred million dollars, adding six million more to the annual sixty million dollar deficit which the country must pay for its Government ownership fad. It is costing more to pay railway deficits than it did to run the whole government twenty-five years ago. No one has suggested a feasible solution. The Canadian Northern, Grand Trunk and Intercolonial as one system with a capital not exceeding $250,000,000 might, under efficient management, be made a selfsustaining organization, but load them with the Grand Trunk Pacific and other roads, and the result would be immediate bankruptcy.
To-day, Mr. Speaker, if the truth was known, I believe it would be found that the Government is seeking to unload its pet system of public ownership of railways which was imposed on the Canadian people through the exercise of .closure in the House of Commons, as I predicted on the floor of this House in 1919. Such a government is not giving the public justice, particularly a government which refuses to dissolve Parliament and give the country an opportunity to select a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
In figurative language we say that we liquidate a situation when we set things back in order, when all is arranged for the best and we come back to normal conditions. The war, which had brought about a disorganization of the economic, social and national life of the nation, is over. The treaties have been signed, and even though peace has not altogether been restored, the nations are all doing their best towards effecting a reconstruction of the political as well as the general domestic conditions. We have thus seen England, France, Italy and the United States renew their Parliaments and governments. Peace brought on a new state of affairs and new men were called upon to establish it .
Let us consider what is going on in the economic world and in the social domain. Industry liquidates; commerce liquidates; groupes replace one another and take their pre-war positions; and while, of course, all this does not take place without some contradiction and friction, this reconstruction is for the best, because it is only in this way that in those domains normal con-

ditions will reappear. Why should conditions he different in the political domain? In Canada, the political situation will not be improved until after liquidation, that is to say, when things and men shall have taken their pre-war places, and, Mr. Speaker, it is only by a dissolution of Parliament and a general election that the necessary liquidation will be accomplished. It is known throughout the world to-day, except by a few non-believers, that the Prime Minister is in the position of what "Le Maitre de la Theologie Catholique" calls a usurper, "qui per ambitionem et proceumque illicito modo potestatem adip-iscitur"-"a man who came into power through ambition and by illicit means."
My right hon. friend does not hold his "would-be" mandate from any national group or from any political party except his own self-constituted party, namely, the "National-Liberal Conservative Party," if I may call it such. Therefore, it behooves my right hon. friend, in order to do justice to the people of this country, to dissolve Parliament and to give the electors an opportunity of either ratifying or rejecting his self appropriated mandate.


Mr. HUGH MURRAY SHAW (MacLeod) :: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to make any lengthy remarks in this debate; but since the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Henders) has brought forward a request asking that the Government appoint a commission to make a thorough investigation into the handling of grain from the time it leaves the farmers' hands until it * reaches its final destination, I feel that I would be negligent in my duty to my constituents if I did not say something regarding it. I am not going to relate any incidents that have come to my knowledge whereby the farmers have not been getting a fair deal. We have heard several incidents cited by former speakers, and what is common at one point occurs throughout the West.
We have heard a great deal, Mr. Speaker, in this chamber about the discontent and unrest that exists among the farmers of Canada. I believe the key to this unrest and discontent which at present exists, will, if an investigation is made, be found in large measure within the operations of the Canada Grain Act. I know the farmers of my constituency, and they are, in my opinion, reasonable; they are willing to live and let live; all they want is a square deal; but under the conditions under which the grain is at present handled,
they know, if I may be pardoned for using a slang expression, that they are being "trimmed at every turn."
We have also heard in this chamber statements made as to the money paid in duties to this Government by farmers of the West. I believe the money paid in duties by the farmers of the West, in comparison with the money lost through the present method of handling grain, is a mere bagatelle. I would strongly endorse the request of the hon. member for Macdonald, that this Government appoint a commission to investigate the grain trade, and do it at the earliest possible moment, so that the farmers of the West may be able to take advantage of it during the coming year.
There is another matter that I wish to bring to the attention of the Government, Mr. Speaker, and that is winter grazing on the forest reserves. At the present time ranchers living in the vicinity of these reserves have the privilege of getting a permit to graze cattles or horses on them, these permits being good for six months, from May 1 to October 31. I believe the rate charged is seven cents per head per month, and is_ charged for the six months. In the^ past this six months' regulation wa3 not rigidly enforced, and ranchers who lived on the edge of the reserve and those who were surrounded by it and who had secured their land before the reserve was set aside, let their cattle graze on these lands later than October 31. Last summer the department issued strict instructions that winter grazing was not to be permitted, with the result that these ranchers who lived on land adjoining the reserve or within its boundaries found themselves in the position that they had nowhere to run their cattle during the winter months. I believe the regulations were changed in the early months of the winter, allowing ranchers who were in this position to obtain special permits to run their cattle as in former years, but they were informed that in future these special winter permits would not be continued.
What I ask is that the Government allow winter grazing on these forest reserves. The ranchers are willing to pay the additional fees, if any, and I am sure that the Government will find use for the money so collected. If there was a lack of grass on these reserves, I could see the wisdom of not allowing winter grazing, but there is plenty of grass at present; in fact, I do not think there are fifty per cent of the cattle in this district that there were two

years ago. On account of the dry year and the high prices for cattle in 1919, the ranchers sold everything that was salable; the winter of 1919-20 was very severe, and the loss to the ranchers was from 10 to 30. per cent. I am not speaking from hearsay; I was oyer parts of the reserve last fall, and I may say that I never saw more grass on it, at that time of the year, than I did then. I have received from the ranchers several letters regarding winter grazing, one of which contains certain statements that I would like to put on Hansard. It is from George Porter, of Maycroft, Alberta:
In taking up this question of winter grazing upon the Forest Reserves you will understand that we are not discussing the reserves as a whole, but just that section in which ourselves and a few other ranchers are interested, namely the porcupine Hills and part of the Rocky Mountain Reserves.
Ourselves and a few others have been running stock in this district for close on to twenty years, some much longer. We realize other reserves have different conditions. Some have no ranchers located within their boundaries, others are only used as summer grazing ground, as, for instance, the Gap Country behind the Livingstone range. On account of the depth of snow and the different quality of the grass, all the average winter cattle would perish if left there. With us in the foothills conditions are entirely different, as, on account of the grass curing and open water, cattle and horses do well in the winter.
We, along with a few others, are located in practically the middle of the reserve, and in our case we have leaseholds scattered throughout the reserve which were acquired before there was any reserve. Since the reserve was formed we have been surrounded, and if you deprive us of winter grazing you force us to discontinue as we have no place else to run our stock, our leases being so mixed up with the grazing on the reserve that it is impossible to use one without the other. Considering the state of the stock industry to-day, we feel sure once you are aware of the facts in connection with our case it would not be the policy of the Government to close us out.
Unlike the farmer and the man residing on the outside of the reserve who have other lands upon which to run their stock in the winter, and, other interests, such as grain farming, our sole business is the raising of live stock.
We settled here many years ago when very few people would think of living this far away from civilization ; in fact, it is still considered about the jumping off place.
This part of the reserve is an exceedingly rough country, broken up by high ridges and deep ravines; also a big percentage is not available for grazing on account of being covered with poplar-and willow brush, as the topographical map of this district will show. The coulees running up towards the ridges have numerous poisonous plants growing in them, such as larkspur, water hemlock, wild parsnip, etc., etc., so the stock has to be kept out of these places in the spring, but as the plants are harmless in the fall and winter we use that grass then, also the high ridges up toward

the timber, for in the summer the bull-dog and black flies are so bad there that it is impossible to keep stock there, and they stay on the flats. From this you will see that there are only parts of the country available for summer use. It is a kind of law of nature where she reserves certain parts for fresh grass during the fall and winter. A peculiar thing about these poisonous plants is that they are not found to any extent further west of us in the Gap Country behind the Livingstone Range but seem confined to the foothills. Some years the poison is much worse than others, but any stock that are not kept out of these places in the spring and early summer have a big percentage of their number die.
The grass is there, and we are willing to pay for it; so why deprive the rancher within the reserve and who has leaseholds upon the same of the right to use it? On account of the preceding summer being so dry that no feed would grow, and the very severe winter last year, most of us lost about fifty per cent of our cattle. Why cripple the industry further? It looks to most of us like the proverbial last straw. We run about two hundred horses here, and have spent a lot of time and money in buying pure bred stallions, and otherwise improving the herd. If this regulation goes into effect it is all time and money wasted, as we have no place else to run them, and with the state the horse market is in at present it is impossible to sell them. Another thing; we have invested here in ranch equipment, etc., several thousand dollars, also have spent a lot of money in fencing the boundaries of the reserve and putting up different drift fences to handle the stock better. You will realize that we are in a much different position from the man outside the reserve who has not a cent invested and no interest at all within the reserve.
Do not be under the impression that the rancher runs his cattle out all winter without any feed. We put up all the green feed we can raise and what wild hay is available; as the cattle go down in flesh they are taken in and fed, and as the spring draws close a rancher is feeding everything except horses and big steers. If he had to take his stock in off these grazing areas all at once they would soon eat up his supply of feed, also it would be a useless waste of feed as stock stay in good shape until spring. At the present time we have cattle that are in beef condition running on the range.
The letter in which the above was enclosed was dated January 28, 1921. I have known the writer since he came to Alberta some twenty years ago, and I know that the statements he makes there are correct.
We have heard a great deal from the other side of the House on the question of the Government's mandate. Hon. gentlemen opposite contend that this Government has no mandate from the people to continue in office, and that they should resign and go to the country. In this connection I wish to say that during my campaign there was nothing said about the Government, if returned, remaining in power only for the duration of the war; in fact, the late Secretary of State, the

Rt. Hon. A. L. Sifton, when speaking in behalf of the Government at Macleod and High River, in my constituency, said that if the Government was returned it would, in all probabilty, remain until after redistribution, and that at the next election, instead of the West having, as at present, fifty-five members representing them, they would have seventh or seventy-five. This will show, Mr. Shaker, that it was expected that Parliament would run its full term. These statements of Mr. Sifton's will be found in the Calgary and other papers that quoted his speeches at different points in Alberta.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that I have the interests of the farmers of the West just as much at heart as any of the hon. members who belong to the Agrarian party. I have never been asked to resign, nor have I ever heard that it was even intimated that I should resign. But, Mr. Speaker, if I had crossed the floor of the House, I would have expected those of my constituents who voted for me to ask me for my resignation.
In conclusion, I wish to thank the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Henders) for bringing to the attention of the Government and the members of this House the necessity of having an investigation into the grain trade.


Mr. C. A. GAUVREAU (Temiscouata) :: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, it is proper that now and then a French speech be heard in this House, if only to recall to those who forget, that the two languages have equal rights, not only in the House of Commons and in the Senate, but in all the departments and in all the other administrative services in Canada. Therefore, I purpose after the example set by my hon. colleagues from Nicolet (Mr. Trahan), from Hull (Mr. Fontaine), from Rimouski (Mr. d'Anjou) and others, to say in my^maternal tongue, so beautiful, so expressive and so sweet to the ears of whoever can understand and appreciate it, what I think of the present Governement, of its policy in general, and of the amendment proposed by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. MacKenzie King).
Before going over the three points I have first mentioned, I protest in the name of the province of Quebec and of the county which I have represented in this House for the last twenty-four years, against the intended and premeditated insult offered us in not having the Address in response to the Speech from the Throne moved or
25	.
seconded in the French language. Let it not be said that it is the fault of the Province of Quebec, because we have sent to this House no member of the party in office. This answer does not hold good. The member for Edmonton (Mr. H. A. Mackie) speaks French as we all do, and I am sure that if he had been asked to second the Address in French, he would have considered this request as an honour to him, and the old custom would not have been disregarded. It would have been the same thing if the senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Chabot) had been chosen. T accuse the hon. minister of Justice with not having done his duty as representative of Montreal in the French province of Quebec, in neglecting to take the means of preserving the traditions of this House in the choise of the mover and seconder of the Address in answer to the Speech from the Throne. He, especially, who represents the Irish Catholic minority of this country in the Cabinet, should have thought of the other minority which comprises one third of the whole population of the country, and seen to it that equal justice be rendered on this occasion.
This being said for the satisfaction of my conscience and of my legitimate pride in the rights of the French language in this House, I now ask myself: Does the Government really possess the confidence of the country? I hasten to reply, No; and I am going to try and furnish as to that the best possible evidence. How is the voice of the people to be heard if not through the medium of the press and through the byelections which circumstances bring about either in one province or another.
Let us take the great newspapers of the different provinces. Is there not to be found in them every day the evidence that the Government have ceased to command a majority in the country? Is not the Toronto "Globe" which for several years supported the Government, the first now to declare that the time has come for the Cabinet to go before the people? Did not the Montreal "Gazette", the pillar of Conservatism in this country, advise the Government, after the by-election in Peterborough, to have a general election immediately, and not wait till the vote of the Chambers compel them to go and face the electors? What is to be said now of the "Standard" of St. John, New Brunswick? There is not in the whole country a single newspaper more devoted to tory principles, more subservient to the interests of the Conservative party; and


Some hon. MEMBERS:: (Translation.)
Shame!


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Now, those who know the promoter of the War Time Elections Act, and of the other nefarious act of conscription, those who know that the sordid idea which was at the base of the elaboration of that last act, had not so much for object to send reinforcements to our soldiers in the trenches as hopes to see the province of Quebec rise in revolt against its application, and then raise the English provinces against us: all those who know the promoter of the famous Closure Act, of which our poor and revered chief, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, was the first victim, will understand what he had in mind when he was so discoursing at the time of the elections of Yale.
That was the old and vile insult hurled anew against us, citizens of the province of Quebec; under another form, it was a new edition of the story about the slackers, the cowards and the traitors of Quebec.
Confronted with those statements, the Prime Minister cannot answer that we are unable to prove our contention, and it ill becomes him to hold out his hand to us when there is nothing in his bosom but disguised hostility. If his fondness for Quebec was such why did he turn to this side of the House in search of some one for his cabinet when there are in Montreal and elsewhere in the province so many Conservatives who would be only too willing to take the chance? He hoped to disintegrate the liberal block in Quebec. He failed in his attempt or rather he only succeeded in rendering it more compact than ever by withdrawing from our midst a unit which was already loosened. I think the honourable member from St. Hyacinthe and Rouville will long regret that mistaken stroke of the oar of which the honourable member from Jacques-Cartier (Mr. Lafor-tune) spoke, and the remarks he made in this House about his former friends, far from enhancing his reputation will be considered as the song of the swan leaving the sunny shores where he led a happy life for the cold regions whence there is no coming back.
If the honourable Prime Minister intended to prove his sympathy for the province of Quebec and its religious convictions,
25*	... *	I1; ili
why did he not oblige the Civil Service Commission to keep the pledge given by the former Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Sir R. L. Borden, who had stated in this House that Catholic public servants would not have to work on holidays which according to our creed must be kept as Sundays, the Lord's days. He refused to do so and for that he is still open to pen-sure for this lack of sympathy toward us, citizens of the province of Quebec.
I would like to refer in passing to the policy as ruinous as it is blamable concerning the national railway. In two years, a magnificent policy, that of state railways, has been turned into an utter failure to which is added a deficit of over $100,000, 000. And what is the treatment meted out to the old pension employees of the Intercolonial? During the war and the most acute period of the high cost of living, they were, together with their wives and children, left to suffer greatly, only receiving a meagre minimum pension of $15 a month. Have they acted fairly and decently toward these old and faithful servants of the country? I pleaded for them to the best of my ability. I entreated the Minister of Railways to have mercy upon those men who have given thirty or forty years of their lives to the service of their country. The honourable Minister-I must praise him for it-was well intentioned, but the officers in charge of the pension fund were not as well intentioned and were guarding the treasury as if it were their own. I again beseech the Government to have mercy upon those old servants and I ask for an increase of their pensions so that they may enjoy in their old age a certain amount of comfort which is not denied even by the society for the prevention of cruelty to animals.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude by'saying that this Government does not enjoy any more the confidence of the country, because they have usurped power by treading under foot its constitutional liberties; that the time has come for an appeal to the people who are eager to pass judgment upon those who have bungled what we hold most dear: our democratic system.
There is but one way to carry out the designs of the people who are clamouring for a general election; it is to vote for the amendment of my leader-the authorised, avowed and admired leader of the liberal party.
I know beforehand those who will vote against this amendment. First, the whole

Government, because they do not want to get out, then Liberals who disowned their leader and their party and who are not courageous enough to let go such a fat portfolio. Then, again, those who will never be returned to this House and who are over anxious to lay hold of their $4,000 indemnity for a session or two longer; also, those craving for power or sponging upon the government, who are counting on senator- or judgeships and-the last but not the least-the high priests of protection, the pillars of the big interests who well know that, on the day when the Government vanishes, they will no longer be the masters of the new administration.
The Government may have a majority, but it will be neither real nor disinterested and, consequently, it will be impossible for it to last long, for the day is not far distant when Canada will witness in the place of honourable gentlemen opposite a new administration truly liberal and national, and anxious to put an end to the great crisis we are going through at the present time.


Mr. EDWARD THOMAS WORDON MYERS (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the remarks of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Gauvreau) are correct, and from the intelligence of the gentleman and the able manner in which he seemed to deliver his speech I take it for granted that he was supporting the Government.


Mr. JACOBS:: You should take a few
lessons in French.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: You had better carry a dictionary around with you.


Edward Thomas Wordon Myers: I desire to say just a few words in regard to the amendment to the amendment introduced this afternoon by the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Campbell.) From	what I	could glean,its import	is that	redistribution
his mind, is of such importance that it is the duty of this Government to adjourn the House after supply is voted and certain urgent business is concluded, let the census be taken in the month of June, let the statistics be compiled by the Department of Trade and Commerce, and after the data are ready let us again meet here and pass a redistribution bill and then go to the country and get the verdict of the people as to who should govern this nation at the present time. Well, I do not agree with the amendment, because I do not think that, if we adjourned the House in May or June it would be possible to meet again, as sug-
gested by the hon. member, before December or January; and this would make it absolutely infeasible. Therefore, on that ground I cannot support the amendment to the amendment.
It was not my intention to participate in this debate, but a very important question indeed has been interjected, a question that is agitating the minds of the western farmers, and that is the grain trade. I shall not deal with the various irrelevant arguments that have been put forward in regard to the want of confidence amendment introduced by the leader of the Opposition. I should not like to pass, however, without concurring in the many expressions of congratulation and words of commendation already uttered in reference to the hon. member for King's, P.E.I. (Mr. Mclsaac), who moved the address, and the newly elected Government supporter from Yale in British Columbia (Mr. MacKelvie). Nor can I let this opportunity pass without extending my congratulations to the right hon. the Prime Minister (Hon. Mr. Meighen). To my mind, a man of his intellect, ability, sagacity and honesty of purpose well merits the high honour which has been bestowed upon him, and I have no doubt if he is given an opportunity he will guide Canada's destinies in safe, sane and successful channels. I do not want to be accused of any lack of courtesy towards the leaders of the dual Opposition, and I will say that they have my very best wishes. They are both very estimable gentlemen, and though, in my opinion, they are mistaken in their firm conviction of what is right and wrong so far as certain policies are concerned, yet I believe they have a duty to perform, and in that duty as leaders of the Opposition they have my best wishes that they may remain in that capacity for years to come.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is a chestnut


Edward Thomas Wordon Myers: I will not touch the tariff. When the Budget proposals are brought down there will be ample opportunity to deal with matter affecting the tariff. The country has been put to a great expense in connection with tariff revision, a commission having travelled from coast to coast to obtain information regarding the fiscal needs of Canada, and when the Budget proposals of the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) are brought down, based upon his findings, there will be ample opportunity for every hon. member to voice his sentiments and record his vote according to his views on the fiscal necessities of the country.

Owing to the great strain and strenuous endeavours occasioned by the war, this is the first opportunity since the cessation of the activities of the late struggle that the Government, or any member of it, has had of putting before the people of Canada its policy. The Prime Minister has been travelling from coast to coast outlining, where ever he has spoken, the policy of the Government, which is uniformly the same. The leader of the Opposition also has been making a tour of Canada, hut we find him most inconsistent. As he travels through territories different from a geographical standpoint, where interests are not identical, we see that he has a policy to suit every individual district. And so far as the leader of the National Progressives, as they style themselves, is concerned, I am sure that hon. members, as they listened to his statement of his policy, could hear the echoes from afar of such men in the past as the late Sir Richard Cartwright and others who shared his views on fiscal matters. However, I do not think that one need have very much mental aptitude to realize, despite the rambling and the vaporizing to the contrary of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould), that there is a collusion between those two great leaders.


An hon. MEMBER:: A collision?


Edward Thomas Wordon Myers: No, a collusion:	an alliance if you prefer; or, if I may put it in other language, a confusion of harmony, the confusion being for the sole purpose of misleading the people. They are out and they want to get in, and if I have an opportunity of discussing in this House the Budget proposals of the Minister of Finance, I hope to be able to deal more thoroughly with what the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Blake) described as the political foot-ball of Canada. Now, I think I have given one reason why the amendment of the leader of the Opposition should not be accepted, and that is the fact that the Tariff Commission is about to revise the artiff, which will mean stability for Canada. That is what we need. If the Government were to take the advice of the leader of the Opposition and resign, and if the Governor General called upon him to form a Government, it would mean possibly a year of unrest and instability so far as fiscal matters are concerned; and that is one good reason for postponing an election until the constitutional period has expired.


Joseph Archambault: Self-preservation.


Edward Thomas Wordon Myers: I believe there is an alliance between the leaders of the dual Opposition for a purpose. You have heard, Mr. Speaker, the well-known expression: "Two minds with but a single thought; two hearts that beat as one". Well, I believe that these words are eminently applicable to these hon. leaders. I have the platform which was adopted by the Organized Farmers of Canada. I see that in one of their planks they advocate the reform of the Federal Senate. I do not know what they propose in the way of reform, but I hope it will not be along the line recommended by a certain Senator from Manitoba. I certainly believe there are ways in which the Senate can be reformed. At the present time the representation in the Senate of various provinces is not on a fair basis according to territory. At the present time the province of Saskatchewan is entitled to six senators. We have four now and there are two vacancies. The present senators are: Hon. Messrs. Ross and Willoughby of Moosejaw, Laird of Regina, and Turriff, who at present, I believe, is domiciled in the city of Ottawa, I would point out that the present senatorial representation is grouped around Regina, within a radius of forty or fifty miles, and all central and northern Saskatchewan is unrepresented in the Senate.
Now I believe that instead of having appointments to the Senate made on the prerogative of the Prime Minister, who nominates whom he sees fit, every province should be divided into senatorial districts and senators should be elected for those districts and be compelled to reside in the district which they represent. Further, I believe that the election to fill any Senate vacancy should be according to the rules which now govern elections to the House of Commons. The right of sitting in the Senate should also be accorded to women. This Government, and I am glad of it, has extended the suffrage to women and they are now entitled to sit in this Chamber as well as in the Provincial Legislatures I see no reason why they should not be enabled to sit in the Upper Chamber of this Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a great deal of talk with respect to matters which may possibly be termed parochial. But the question of freight rates is not a parochial one. In the West we feel that, under the judgments rendered by the Board of Railway Commissioners, we are particularly discriminated against. It was especially hard, Sir, to have an in-

creased rate go into effect about October 1, last year, when we were starting to ship our grain. I believe it to be the duty of this Government-and I give the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) credit for advocating the same thing-to ask for the resignation of the Board of Railway Commissioners if they will not do justice to Western Canada. Now, interlocked with the subject of freight rates is the matter of the operation of the Canadian National Railway which unfortunately has a large deficit every year. In my opinion the Government should plan out a re-organization of the directorate and general management of that system. As long as deficits continue in the operation of the Canadian National System of Railways, there will be a demand for the enforcement of the existing, and possibly higher, freight rates; and therefore this Government should ask for the resignation of the present management in order that a thorough re-organization may be brought about and experts appointed to efficiently operate the system.
I believe, Sir, that Canada, as far as possible, should live on its own resources. In saying that I have reference to the large amount of money that is spent in importing coal from United States. Now in Eastern Canada as well as in the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia, we have vast coal fields; and I believe it would be a good policy on the part of the Government if they could so arrange railway freight rates, and the rates of our own merchant marine, as to bring western coal at a reasonable price from the head of the Great Lakes to the consumers of the East. I notice that the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele) has a resolution on the Order Paper dealing with the matter of the coal supply of Canada, and I am very pleased indeed that the hon. member is bringing this important subject to the attention of the House.
This leads me to the grain situation, a very important matter from my point of view as a Western member. I was very much gratified when the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Henders) brought this matter forward. During the war the grain trade channels were very much disrupted. In i917, owing to price fluctuations, the Government in their wisdom thought it better to fix the price for our wheat. The same course was adopted in 1918. In 1919 there was great uncertainty. The then Minister of Agriculture, now the leader of the National Progressive Party (Mr. 
Crerar), in many communications to me, stated that the Government could not do anything, that owing to the grain trade being in such an unstable condition it was not possible to make any provision from the public treasury. That hon. gentleman later burned his bridges behind him and left the Government. We have heard it stated that there was opposition to the establishment of the Wheat Board. I do not wish to lay myself open to the charge of making unfair accusations, but as a western member I feel that some of us on this side who represent constituencies in Saskatchewan are not being fairly dealt with as far as the Wheat Board is concerned. I am not going to eulogize the work of the Wheat Board because other hon. gentlemen who have already spoken have done so effectively. But there was opposition to the creation of the Wheat Board. The Government organized that Board in the face of direct opposition from the farmers. The member from Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg), a very estimable gentleman, speaking on May 21st, 1920, as reported at page 2365 of Hansard, expressed himself as follows:
The hon. gentleman who has preceded me touched on one of these (statements) and that is the Wheat Board. We did not ask for the Wheat Board. The inference, if not the statement, is to the effect that the farmers asked for the Wheat Board. One hon. member described it as the pooling of our wheat. While the hon. member for Kent (Mr. McCoig) stated that the Government appointed the * Wheat Board I want to go further and say that the Government did it against the strong opposition of the farmers of this country. The farmers did not want it and they did not ask for it.
Now, I think that settles the point beyond all question.


John Archibald Maharg: If the hon. member
wishes to be fair, will he please continue and read further from that speech?


Edward Thomas Wordon Myers: I will do so, I do not want to be unfair. It says:
The farmers did not want it, and they did not ask for it. But if the Government stepped in, took possession and broke down the lines which had been built up, financially and otherwise, and if there is pooling in the buying of wheat overseas-
I suppose that is what the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg) refers to.
-we have no hesitation in saying that we con>-sider it the proper course for our Government to carry out pooling in the selling of wheat, just so long at least as there was pooling in buying from us.
Nevertheless, there is the plain statement, Sir, that they were in opposition to

the formation of the Wheat Board. However, as I say, I am not going to refer to the workings of the Wheat Board. We all know that it was a success in spite of what the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) said on Friday night, that he was not personally opposed to the formation of the Wheat Board. Yet in his maiden speech in this House he said that he had visited many elevators in North Dakota and they were paying $3.05 a bushel there; that the American farmer was pocketing $1.11 more than the Canadian farmer; that the farmers in his constituency were receiving 70 cents to $1 less a bushel for their wheat; that his participation certificates were in a box at home, and he was quite convinced in his own mind that he would get less for his wheat than was paid to the American farmer. Well, it was very interesting when the report of the Wheat Board was tabled, which showed that the Canadian farmer received about 25 cents a bushel more on the average for his wheat than the American farmer did, owing to the working of the Wheat Board.
Then, Sir, we come to the enabling resolution which would havfe enabled this Government, if they saw fit, to re-establish the Canada Wheat Board. I will give my hon. friend from Maple Creek due credit for very heartily supporting that resolution, merely to show that I do not want to b(e unfair to him. But the member for Assiniboia in speaking on that enabling resolution was not quite so certain about what he wanted as the hon. member for Maple Creek. At page 4112, volume 5, of Hansard, I find the member for Assiniboia is reported as saying:
I do not wish my remarks to be interpreted as indicating that I am diametrically opposed to this legislation or entirely in sympathy with it.


Mr. BEST:: He was climbing the fence.


Edward Thomas Wordon Myers: I do not wish to be unfair to the hon. member for Assiniboia. He said just at the conclusion of his speech:
I propose to vote for the re-establishment of the Wheat Board this year. I pledge myself only for this year.
I think that kind of support was not likely to give this Government very much backbone towards re-establishing the Wheat Board. We know that the leader of the National Progressive party was not in sympathy with it; he was honest in his conviction, but he was opposed to it. He stated in Hansard:
Personally, I am opposed entirely to any permanent policy which means control of the marketing of the grain of this Country.
I suppose there was a reason why he was opposed to such a policy. But when we consider that the Grain Growers' Grain Company and the Saskatchewan Co-operative Elevator Company handled about one-third of the total wheat crop of the Prairie Provinces, I believe they should have given the Government a more sympathetic support towards the re-establishment of the Wheat Board.


John Archibald Maharg: May I ask what my hon. friend means by the word "they?" He was speaking of two companies and said that they should have given more enthusiastic support.


Edward Thomas Wordon Myers: I mean the directors of both companies and all concerned with their operation, because, Mr. Speaker, they are supposed to be the champions of the farmers of Saskatchewan.


John Archibald Maharg: May I ask my hon. friend if he is aware that at the annual meeting of the Saskatchewan Co-operative Elevator Company, about two months after the Wheat Board came into existence, they passed a unanimous resolution asking for a continuance of the national marketing of our grain?


Edward Thomas Wordon Myers: I think I saw that in the press. But what I am getting at is the fact that there was not the enthusiastic support of the organized grain companies in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta that there should have been. The situation is this, that the member for Assiniboia last week delivered a tirade of abuse against the Government, and yet when this enabling resolution was being discussed in the House he did not seem to know his own mind.
Throughout the West there has been an agitation for the formation of a wheat pool. This is a copy of the questionnaire which has been sent out from the Grain Growers' Guide Limited, It says:
Enclose one dollar and answer questions contained hereon.
I do not know whether the Grain Growers' Guide is more concerned about its subscription list, or about the farmers' dilemma in connection with the marketing of their grain. However, I have been ' hoping that the organizations of the farmers would formulate some feasible scheme. I would heartily support a wheat pool or any other scheme which would

enable us to handle our grain in a more efficient manner than we are able to do it under the present system. We see nothing in the press that anything has been formulated. I would certainly urge them to formulate a wheat pool or some other stabilizing agency which will enable us in Western Canada to get rid of many of the grievances with which we are hampered to-day.
I was very glad indeed that the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Henders) urged the Government to appoint a Royal Commission to look into ! the many grievances, major and minor, affecting the grain trade of Canada. I would not like to see this left to the Board of Grain Commissioners; I would rather see an independent Royal Commission appointed, clothed with proper authority to investigate every phase of the grain trade. As the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Blair) said, "Start at the country elevator and continue to the mills in Europe if necessary." I am going to read a tabulated statement which covers the ground very thoroughly:
That a commission be appointed to investigate: the grading and weighing of grain; the receiving, handling and shipping of grain through country elevators and from country points; the operation of grain exchanges by the members thereof; the work of grain exchanges ; the handling of grain at terminal points; the holding of grain at terminal points; the operation of public and private terminal elevators and eastern public elevators; the operation of the Lake Shippers' Clearance Association ; the operation of the North-west Grain Dealers' Association ; the trimming of grain at the upper and lower lake ports and ocean ports; lake shipments; the shipment of grain to Atlantic and Pacific ports; the operation of Canadian flour and feed mills.
Another thing, Sir, is, I think, of great importance. We have a report from the Quebec Board of Trade which says that in the six years from 1912 to 1918, 1,096 million bushels of grain were shipped from Fort William by water. Of this vast quantity, the:e were sent to Port McNicoll, Port Colborne, Midland and other Georgian Bay ports, for the suuply of all the flour mills in Eastern Canada-some of which was subsequently shipped by rail to New York, Portland, etc., for export, and a small quantity to Montreal and St. John-578 million bushels. To Buffalo-the greater part afterwards sent to New York and other United States seaports for export-there were sent 518 million bushels.
I believe the condition here revealed is a mistake from a Canadian national viewpoint. We have three great transcontinental lines of railway. We have the ports of Montreal,* Quebec, Halifax, St.

John, and I do not see why one bushel of our wheat should reach New York. We have the Transcontinental Railway going into Quebec with a shorter mileage between Quebec and the West than either of the two transcontinental railways. We have an excellent natural harbour at that port, and for the life of me I cannot see why we do not use it. This is another matter which, in my judgment, should be taken into consideration by this Royal Commission-the facilities for marketing our grain and shipping it to Liverpool by Canadian ports only, thus preventing the loss of the identity of our hard wheat through the American practice of mixing it with their soft wheat.
I think there are three main reasons why this Government should carry on at the present time. I cannot see that there has been any really urgent demand for an election from the majority of the people. No matter what Government is in power, there will always be demands from certain quarters for their resignation. As many speakers have reiterated during the course of this debate, not one charge of scandal or graft or corruption can be brought against this Government-a wonderful record. I believe it is the only Government of this country that has been free from taint of graft or corruption, and that consideration should commend itself to the electors. The second reason I referred to a few moments ago-that we want tariff revision and that we want Budget proposals brought down based on the tariff revision with a view to creating that degree of stability in our industries on which the employment of labour depends.
The hon. member for Nelson said that it was very important that we should have redistribution. Why, Sir, we in Western Canada will gain from fifteen to twenty seats after redistribution, and any person in that part of the country who votes for an election before redistribution is not acting in accordance with the wishes of the people out there. Personally I have received more requests that dissolution of this Parliament should not take place until after redistribution than requests to go to the country immediately. In the election campaign of 1917 the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in his manifesto to the electors, stated that Canada would gain twenty-two seats by redistribution and that there were twenty-four vacancies in the House of Commons. Well, Sir, in war time, when the very existence of our people was at stake, the leader of the Opposition of that day thought it of sufficient importance to

go to the country on account of having possibly twenty-two additional representatives from the West. It is even more advisable that we should now wait until redistribution takes place, after the census in June, before holding an election.
The leader of the National Progressive party seemed to be very much alarmed over what might happen when the redistribution Bill was brought down. He seemed to fear that almost a crime would be committed in the way the country would be gerrymandered. Well, Sir, if we are spared we will be in the House when the redistribution bill is being discussed, and I will stand shoulder to shoulder with the member for Marquette and vote against the Government if they attempt to do anything of that nature. I think, however, that his fears are groundless, because we have an honest Prime Minister, a man who Would not permit the perpetration of such a crime.
The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) said, with regard to redistribution, that it was a matter of
10 p.m. principle; that hon. gentlemen from the West were capable of looking after the interests of the West- members who will be returned at the next election, and members who are here now. That created a suspicion in my mind, because it is well known that the province from which he comes will probably lose some members when redistribution takes place. I believe that the hon. member was speaking purely from a selfish point of view when he spoke that way.
I have tried during the course of my rambling remarks to make it quite plain that it is my intention to vote against the amendment of the leader of the Opposition. I believe it is my duty, particularly as a western member, to carry on here until we get proper representation for Western Canada.


Mr. THOMAS HAY (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, before touching upon any of the matters which are of interest to the country at this time, I wish to join with those who have preceded me in congratulating the mover (Mr. Mclsaac), and the seconder (Mr. MacKelvie), of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, whose addresses contained very much information of interest to the House and to the country. Coming, as they do, one from each extreme end of Canada, these hon. members have given us information regarding their particular parts of the country which should
be helpful to the members of the House and to the people generally.
I wish also, before going further, to congratulate the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen), upon his elevation to the position which he now occupies. It is truly an exalted position and one which carries with it very great responsibilities indeed.
I feel sure that the right hon. gentleman, with his ability and his sincerity, will bring to the duties of his office the very best that is in him, and will do all he can to further the interests of the great Dominion and administration of whose affairs has been committed to his charge. I believe that the people of Canada generally are satisfied with the choice. I am sure that when it was announced that the right hon. gentleman was selected to lead the Government of this country a sigh of relief was breathed by the citizens generally upon realizing that such an able man had been selected to look after the destinies of Canada. Of course, our friends across the floor will, perhaps, not agree with what I have to say, but I am satisfied that the great majority of the Canadian people think as I do on the subject of an election. I know throughout the western part of this Dominion, at any rate, and, I believe in the province of Ontario and the other provinces, there is really no great demand for an election at this time; in fact, I am satisfied that the very opposite is the desire of the people, that is, they are quite content that the Prime Minister and the present Government should carry on.
Last session the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) in speaking on the Address in reply to the speech from the Throne, seemed to be very much worried because no hint of policy was contained in that speech. He said that it was empty and barren and dealt more with matters of a foreign nature than with domestic matters. This year, when a definite policy was laid down and a number of very important matters were dealt with in the speech from the Throne, he refused entirely to deal with them. He sidestepped the issue, and ever since this debate opened his supporters, following his example, sidestepped the issue also. It is perhaps policy on their part to do that; but we know and the people know and hon. gentlemen occupying benches across this Chamber know that my hon. friends opposite will not be in a position to do that when they come face to face with the electors of this Dominion; they will then be compelled to face the issue and to deal with the facts. I am satisfied that the great issue that will

be brought before the people at the next general election will be the tariff issue, and my hon. friends opposite will be compelled to deal with that on every platform throughout the Dominion. The leader of the Opposition, instead of meeting the issue fairly and squarely, endeavoured to draw, as it were, a red herring across his trail; he endeavoured to divert the minds of the people and the members to some other issue which is really not an issue at the present time. Through the medium of Parliament he told the people that the great issue at this time was that of a general election, but there is really no such demand. He referred to the Government and its supporters as usurpers of office and office seekers. To my mind, that charge, particularly the one referring to members as office seekers, rebounds like a boomerang on the head of the hon. gentleman, because a charge like that cannot be sustained. We know members occupying the treasury benches are in office at present and are likely to be in office for some time, and consequently, the men who are office seekers at the present moment are hon. gentlemen opposite. I think that is quite clear. Their object in trying to bring about a general election at this time is to get a snap verdict from the people. It has been stated in this House by many speakers-and we know it to be a fact-that the members of the Government during the past three years were so busy with problems arising out of the war and after-war problems, which were many, difficult and knotty, problems such as the statesmen of this Dominion have never before been called upon to wrestle with, that they were not in a position to inform the country as to what had been done and what they intended to do. In the meantime, the Opposition to a man-and I include both branches of that Opposition-were busy throughout the country trying to create a sentiment unfavourable to this Government. To some extent they have succeeded in doing that, and they believe, after they have succeeded in creating a sentiment largely unfavourable to the Government, they may be in a position to win a snap verdict from the people and consequently be returned to office, but I do not think there is much chance of that. If the Prime Minister and his ministers carry on and complete the work that they have been engaged in, the people, after the case has been fully explained to them, will realize that they have had, during the troublesome times through which we have passed, 
a Government that has been capable, honest, and sincere in purpose.
I should like to say a word regarding the matter of our home market, which I consider would be jeopardized if hon. gentlemen who occupy seats at the extreme end of the Chamber on your left, Sir, were returned to power. Of course, they will say that this is a matter which the old political parties, particularly the Conservative party, have held up for years as a bogey before the people of this Dominion, and have succeeded in obtaining their votes in that way. But I am satisfied that if their policy was put into force in this country, it would be a real menace, not only to the manufacturing interests but to the farming interests as well, because they are dependent to some extent on each other. The farming industry alone never made a country great and wealthy; to bring that about manufacturing industries are required as well; in fact, I believe the success of the farming industry of any country lies largely with the manufacturing interests. Their interests are indissolubly bound up together and the one cannot be separated from the other. I have heard it stated on many occasions, and I think I have heard the statement made in the House, that 85 per cent of the products of Canada are consumed and used in the Dominion. I do not know whether that is correct or not, but I am sure, Sir, you will agree with me when I say that if that be the fact, that means a great deal to the farming interests of this Dominion, because it certainly means that the home market is a valuable market to our farmers. Anything that would help to reduce that market or to curtail its purchasing power in any way would certainly not be in the interests of the farmers. I am satisfied that the most valuable market that a country can have is its home market. We have had evidences of that every day, and particularly during the last few years. We know that Great Britain at the present time has an embargo against Canadian cattle. In 1919, I believe it was, we had the spectacle of the United States placing an embargo against Canadian wheat and at present they are raising the duties against Canadian grain and other products of the farm. Consequently, we must look to our own markets to take the produce of our farms, if we wish to be an inde-t pendent people as far as agriculture is concerned. The Fordney Bill, which passed the Senate quite recently, aims at protecting the farmers and producers of the United

States. I think there is a lesson in that lor the Canadian people. If in a countrylike the United States, where they have a better climate than ours for producing certain lines of produce, it has been found necessary to protect their farming interests, surely it is necessary for the Canadian people living adjacent to that great republic to do something to protect our interests along the same line.
I want to join hands with the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Henders) in his request for a commission to investigate the Canadian wheat trade from the time the grain leaves the farmer's wagon till it arrives at its destination, wherever that may be. I am satisfied that many of the elevator companies and others handling the farmer's grain are making immense profits on their handling, through overages, and in many other ways. Some hon. member has already dealt this evening with the difference between the track price and the price on the street. The spread there is, in my opinion, unwarrantable, and I think it is unwarrantable in the opinion of any member who has given any study to this question at all. I strongly support my hon. friend's request for a commission to investigate the grain trade in all its phases and aspects, to ascertain wherein conditions can be bettered in the handling of the grain, and see that the profits shall accrue to the farmer and not to the elevator companies or the men engaged irr the handling of the crop.
The leader of the Opposition, in his great hurry to introduce a motion of want of confidence in this Government, overlooked another very important matter which was mentioned in the speech from the Throne. I refer to old age pensions and unemployment insurance. This did not seem to strike the leader of the Opposition or any of his followers as being worthy of any notice whatever. I do not know what the labour representatives sitting behind the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) thought, when not only the leader of the Opposition overlooked this very important question, but their own leader practically said there was no need of old age pensions or unemployment insurance at this particular time. I believe the labour interests of this country are keenly alive to the necessity of some kind of unemployment insurance, and I should like to quote from a little pamphlet issued by the Labour Congress of Canada, dated February 1921, and entitled "Legislative Programme of the Trades and
Labour Congress of Canada." Dealing with this question of unemployment insurance, they say:'
If any argument were needed as to its necessity it has been fully furnished during the past few months when thousands of good Canadian citizens have suffered through lack of employment and through fear of its consequences. We recommend the enactment of unemployment insurance embodying certain principles.
Then they go on to state what those principles should be. I was very much surprised to hear the hon. member for Marquette state that unemployment insurance was not necessary at the present time.
I think the matter of unemployment insurance and old age pensions is one of the vital questions confronting the Canadian people at this time, and it is one that will have to be solved by the statesmen of this country in the near future. Unemployment has always existed in this country, and it will always continue to exist, because we are largely an agricultural people, and agriculture employs men for only six or eight months in the year. After that, they have to look elsewhere for employment. Now, if the greatest and basic industry of this Dominion can afford employment to men only for a portion of the year, unemployment will naturally continue to exist in this country, and this question of unemployment is one of the big problems with which we are face to face at the present time. I repeat, I was surprised to hear the leader of the Agra rian party treat this subject of vital importance so lightly. I do not know what the feelings of the labour people of this country will be when they know that both leaders of the two parties aspiring to come into power in this country and take charge of the destinies of Canada did not see fit to devote more than a minute of their time to this question of supreme importance to the labour men of this country. It is a question that will have to be grappled with sooner or later, and personally I would support any system of old age pensions and unemployment insurance that would not throw the burden on the Federal Government or even on the Provincial Governments. I would support a system of old age pensions and unemployment insurance that would compel the men who would get assistance from that fund to contribute something towards it. I feel that is the only reasonable way of bringing into force a system that would be of assistance to the labouring men during periods of unemployment.

Mr. Speaker, this debate has covered a very wide range, and the ground has been pretty well covered, I think, since the opening of the debate two weeks ago. Anything I might add would simply be a re-hash of arguments that have been made before, but in closing I just wish to give this little bit of advice to the Prime Minister. It is this: that he carry on. I believe that the people of this Dominion expect him to carry on.
They are struck with his sincerity and his honesty of purpose in endeavouring to give the country a good Government. They were struck with his sincerity as he went through the country a few months ago laying down the same policy in different parts of the country and not varying his policy to suit the different districts in which he spoke. There was no vaciliation about his policy; there was no trying to shift matters to other shoulders or to get away from the issue in any way. His policy was clear-cut, straight and above board. That is what the people are looking for and I am satisfied that after they have been enlightened as to what the Government has accomplished during the past year, and what their policy is with respect to the future, there will be no danger of this Government's being voted out of office. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the interest and attention which have been accorded me.


Mr. FERRIS BOLTON (Lisgar) :: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to detain the House at any great length, nor is it my purpose to hand out any more bouquets to the Prime Minister or to the mover and seconder of the Address. I think that that phase of the debate has been amply attended to, and with all the best sentiments expressed I am in hearty accord. I simply rise to endorse the request made by the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Henders), to have a commission appointed to look into the grain trade. There is no more vital question before the farmers of the West than the handling and transportation of the products of the farm. Years ago our grain came from the machines in a rather clean state and was fit for shipment. Very soon, however, the advent of noxious weeds made it necessary for the elevators to put in cleaners to clean the grain before shipment; but this was soon discarded and at the present time nearly all grain is shipped in a very unclean state, and in this way the farmers do not know what they are getting or how much they will be docked. They have to pay freight charges on the screenings as well as giving it away for nothing 
and I think it would be the very best thing for the farmers to have a commission appointed to investigate the handling of grain from start to finish.
When the hon. member for Macdonald brought this question up, I thought that, as it was a suggestion of a progressive character, the Progressive party opposite would join in the discussion. But strange to say, up to the present time nothing has been said from that quarter on the subject. I suppose time will tell whether the proposal is too progressive or not progressive enough.
I desire to bring another question to the attention of the Government, especially of the hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. McCurdy) and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Ballan-tyne), and that is the drying up of our lakes in the Prairie Provinces. A great many lakes out there have no inlet or outlet and have simply dried up, first turning into hay meadow and then wheat fields. But there are other lakes situated on the river courses and they are drying up with the result that the fish, a great source of food to the farmers, have been practically destroyed. The lakes have become so low in many cases that they have frozen to the bottom that the fish have died and become a great nuisance to the surrounding country in the spring, lying dead along the beach. There has been an improvement made on Killarney and Pelican lakes in the Southwestern portion of the province, which is a credit to the Government; but there is a lake situated entirely in my constituency that has been used considerably as a summer resort. There are a great many cottages built along the beach, and there is a beautiful piece of ground used for a summer school and by picnic parties. But this lake has dried down about three feet and the weeds grow up to the top of the water, which becomes stagnant. I am informed that from three to five thousand dollars would dam the lake up and raise it about three feet. In this way the nuisance would be avoided and we should have a pleasant summer resort.
As to the main question before the House, I must say that I have never had an intimation from my constituency to the effect that I was not doing my duty because I was supporting the present Government. When I was elected there was not a word said about the duration of Parliament, the understanding being that it would run its full term. And I might say that supporters of the hon. leader of the

Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), who voted against me and who would support any candidate running in the interests of the hon. gentleman, if he could find one in the constituency, have informed me that it is advisable for us to continue, because the people do not want an election. These people have told me that they expect us to continue until our time has expired. I therefore think that I have a mandate to support the present Government while it exists. If the leader of the Opposition did not get a mandate in 1917, I do not think we are to blame for that. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I beg to say that I shall vote against the amendments submitted and in support of the motion before the House.
On motion of Mr. Michael Clark (Red Deer) the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Right Hon. C. J. Doherty the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.
Tuesday, March 1, 1921.



REPORTS AND PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
Public Accounts for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1920.-Sir Henry Drayton.
Copies of the Orders in Council carrying out the provisions of the sections of the Act bringing into effect the Treaty of Peace between His Majesty and certain other powers.-Sir Henry Drayton.
Report of the Secretary of State for External Affairs for the year ending March 31,	1920.-Right Hon. Arthur
Meighen.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 14, respecting Gilmour and Hughson, Limited.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 15, to incorporate North American Trust Company of Canada.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 16, respecting "Les Reverends Peres Oblats de Marie Immaculee des Ter-ritoires du Nord-Ouest."-Mr. Mackie (Edmonton).

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 17, to define Canadian Nationals. He said:	The purpose of the Bill is to define
what constitutes a Canadian national. The necessity for such a definition results, in a large measure at all events, from the fact that under different measures adopted in connection with the carrying out of the operations of the League of Nations, there
are provisions made defining certain rights and privileges which may be enjoyed by the nationals of the different members of the League. Under those circumstances it is necessary, I think, that we should make a definition by statute so that the world may know who*is, and is recognized as a Canadian national. The Bill contains one section which defines as being Canadian nationals, British subjects, domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada.
Motion agreed to and Bill read a first time.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the Motion of Mr. James Mclsaac for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the Session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Mackenzie King, and the proposed amendment to the amendment of.Mr. Campbell, resumed from Monday, February 28.
Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer):: Mr-Speaker, I was immediately preceded in this debate late last evening by my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Bolton). My friend is of so modest and unostentatious a disposition, that I am quite sure there are a number, of the members of this House even, who are not aware of the tact that he lost three sons in the great war, and has since passed through terrible family afflictions. I want to take the opportunity afforded me, Sir, by following in this debate to say that I observed with the very greatest satisfaction from the manly, firm and modest way in which he voiced his opinions that his sons came by their grit honourably, and that he himself has come through his troubles in the way that a true Canadian man should do. I am sure that the House, in regard to these circumstances, will join with me in at once offering to my friend our sympathy and our congratulations. My hon. friend himself was preceded by another stalwart and manly friend of mine on the other side of the House who, like the member for Lisgar, might well speak more frequently. My friend from Selkirk (Mr. Hay) appears to me, though I have never gone particularly into his political lineage, to have been brought up in the true old Tory school because he was much concerned last night about the "home market". Well, I do not want to refgr in extenso to what he said, but perhaps it may throw light upon argument which I have to offer later

in this debate if I tell him a story which seems to me to illustrate the weakness of the home market if a nation has to depend upon that exclusively. There was a man once who undertook to breed carp and to breed cats. He established his cat ranch on the banks of a lake. In the lake he bred the carp. When the carp had some young he caught some of them and fed them to the cats. The cats eating the carp in their turn propagated their species, and he fed the young eats to the carp. So he went on changing cats for carp and carp for cats. He had a splendid home market but he never got any richer and he never exported anything. We in this part of the House believe in a larger market than that story illustrates.
I am conscious, Sir, of no mental reservation Whatsoever when I join with many of my fellow members in offering to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr Meighen) my most sincere and hearty congratulations, on personal grounds, on his accession at a comparatively early period of life to the Prime Ministership of this great Dominion, a position which his character, his ability, and his record alike make him eminently fitted to occupy.
I want to say that I congratulate also my hon. friends the mover and the seconder of the Address in reply to the speech from His Excellency. The mover's speech was a model for such an occasion, couched in virile and good English, scarcely at all partisan, commendably brief. The speech of my hon. friend the seconder- was an exceedingly able one considering that it was a maiden speech, and I am sure it has engendered in us all friendly anticipation of the times when we shall hear him again. He was not quite so non-partisan as the mover of the Address however, because coming from the county of Yale he could not refrain from reminding us that in that county they raise apples. We had learned that from several speeches of the Prime Minister during the election in that county. My hon. friend's anxiety about apples is a splendid illustration of the real nature of protection. The outlook of protection is always local, always sectional, always narrow, never national. The difference between my hon. friend and myself is this: he is concerned about the comparatively few Canadians who produce apples in Yale; I aim concerned about Canadians all over the country who eat apples. His interest is in making apples dear;

mine is in making them cheap. That is the outlook of protection not only in Yale, but in any part of the country in which the heresy prevails. When a protectionist comes from Nova Scotia-and I am afraid they have protectionists in that province, Sir-he says: You want free wheat in the West? Why, certainly. You want free implements? Why, have them by all means. You want free coal? Ah! that is a different matter. And he turns away sorrowfully, because they produce coal in Nova Scotia. In Peterborough the protectionist says: Peterborough and Progress. Well, I say, Canada and Progress. The outlook is narrow and sectional in the one case; it is really national in the other. My hon. friend from Joliette (Mr. Denis)-I hope he was only an advocate on the occasion- goes before the Tariff Commission and asks for an outrageous duty upon tobacco, because they grow tobacco in Joliette. What do I care about where they grow tobacco? When I want to smoke it I want to get it good, and cheap, and I do not care where it comes from. That is the difference of outlook. So we claim for our views that we have the true national policy, and that the term "National Policy" as applied to protection is a total misnomer.
Let me press the point a little further. There is no duty so urgent upon Canadians of thoughtful and noble mind-and I believe they are all thoughtful and noble, or nearly so-as the duty of paying our national debt, principal and interest. Does this House think that that debt can be discharged, Mr. Speaker, by the export of excess tomatoes, or excess apples, or excess tobacco, or even excess manufactures? Our exports of manufactures are a mere bagatelle. If we are to discharge that debt, principal and interest, we must do it by the tremendous surplus, which, we are well able to produce, of the great unprotected and unprotectable natural products of the country; and we are prepared to do it if you will get off our backs and give us a chance. That is the true national policy: Support the industries that will make your nation great, honourable, and prosperous.
I quite agree with my hon. friend from East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) that the debate on this Address has taken rather a peculiar form. I agree with him that it has been customary, both in our Parliament and in the Mother of Parliaments, in a debate on the Address to discuss the subjects raised in the Address and the past

and present proceedings of the Administration. I shall follow my leader in ^endeavouring to keep up this old tradition.
I am glad to be able to agree with the Administration that in this country we are freer from unrest and external signs of the aftermath of the war than perhaps in any of the other billigerent nations. I agree with the Administration also in what they state in the same paragraph of the Speech from the Throne as to the harvest having been on the whole fairly good. I am sure that Administration would not claim an undue amount of credit for the fairly good harvest; and I think that the credit is only a limited one in regard to that other matter upon which the nation is congratulated. I do not deny them all credit, far from it. This country has on the whole done very well for her returned soldiers, but, Mr. Speaker, I think the fact that we are free from unrest is due, perhaps, in the first place, to the very high character of the men we sent to the front, most of whom have settled down in splendid shape and are bringing to their civil occupations the same grit and the same force of character which put them in the war at the beginning and kept them there until victory crowned our banners. It is due, in the second place, to many efforts which have been made on the part of our employers of labour-I know some of them in this city, Sir Henry Egan and others- who from the middle of the war busied themselves to keep positions open for the returned soldiers, and in this I am glad to say they have been well supported by the Administration. But it is due, in the third place, to this consideration, which we can be all proud of as Canadians, that this country to-day presents perhaps better opportunities than are presented by any other country in the world for a man who wants to live his life in a bracing and delightful climate and by his own endeavours to work out his temporal and material prosperity.
Now, I have just referred to the fact that this bebate has taken a peculiar course. For the first nine days, Mr. Speaker, hon. gentlemen on the Government side of the House were engaged very largely in taunting my hon. friends of the official Opposition-I do not use the term offensively; it is the only one that occurs to me for the moment-with the fact that they did not refer extensively to the tariff. Well, the Government's supporters are not easy to please, because on Thursday last the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Crerar) referred pretty extensively to the
tariff. But the moment he did so what happened on the Government side? They have not up to the present paid any particular attention to what my leader said about the tariff, but member after member has talked about a subject that is not metioned in the Speech from the Throne at all. An investigation is promised in the speech by His Excellency into the questions of Old Age Pensions and Insurance against Unemployment. But, I repeat, a request has come from member after member for an investigation that is not mentioned in the speech, and that request is a very peculiar one. It is a request for a grain commission-a commission to inquire into and investigate the grain business of Canada. Well, at first sight I thought this was an unrehearsed, and therefore unprinted, portion of the speech by His Excellency; but on second thought it occurred to me that it would have been a much more fit theme to place in the motion of my hon. friend, the leader of the Opposition, calling for censure upon the Government. If the grain business is wrong, who is responsible for it?' This Government, or a government very much like this, has been in power in this country since 1911. During this time we have had grain legislation before the House; the Nestor of the Tory party and of the Administration, my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), is absolutely responsible for the grain laws that prevail in this country at the present time. And they have a Grain Commission; so this proposal that has been adumbrated, that emanated first from the member for Macdonald (Mr. Henders) and has been supported all over that side of the House, is that we should have a Government commission to inquire into why another Government commission is not doing its duty. Well, I would like to know if we are going to pyramid commissions upon commissions? If the first Government commission, which [DOT] is the creature of a member of the Administration, the Nestor of the Tory party and the Administration, is not doing its duty, how do we know that the second commission will do its duty? I think we had better prod the commission that we have in the meantime. All that I would like to say about these promised investigations, whether in the speech or out of it, is that I venture a prophecy that they will be pretty much protracted, and as they will be pretty much protracted their well-considered findings will not come before Parliament until the successors of this present

House are doing business here. And when I mention the successors I am afflicted by my friendly feelings for fellow-members and certain anxieties about myself, to such an extent that I think we had better leave the findings and investigations to our successors. The coming House certainly will differ very materially in personnel from that which at present occupies the Chamber.
I heard with very great pleasure the magnificent speech of my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce upon the League of Nations, and as he poured forth those rounded periods containing noble ideals couched in lofty language, as a Canadian I felt proud that we had an "old man eloquent" in Canada whom we need not be afraid to send to Geneva or anywhere else. With regard to the League of Nations, Mr. Speaker, I should just like to say this: that the sentiments of the Canadian people from the Atlantic to the Pacific are thoroughly peaceful sentiments as regards our fellow men and that the Administration may be sure that behind any effort they may make to maintain the peace of the world they have the unanimous strength and support of the whole Canadian people. I should just like to say further in regard to the League that I think if there is a danger attaching to its operations it is to be found in a tendency too greatly to multiply its machinery and to increase too much its international obligations. There are a great many obligations that are in their very nature national, and to endeavour to get a Parliament of the World at the present stage of human development is, perhaps, to anticipate the millennium a little too rapidly. While I say that, I feel certain that the League is a tremendous step in the direction of making it sure that in the future history of this world, if any nation should venture to break international law flagrantly as Germany did, and confess their doing it while they do it, there is almost a certainty that the civilized peoples of the world will rise and say: You are the [DOT] common enemy of the race, and you must be prepared for being handled by the rest of mankind.
While touching on this topic may I say that I am sincerely pained from time to time to hear the jibes that are sometimes thrown across the border at our friends in the United States. I am equally pained by the jibes that come from certain sections of the population-a very small part of it,
I am glad to think-of the United States towards Canada. Mr. Speaker, I can conceive of no greater destiny in th 3 im-

mediate future, of no higher duty, of no more sacred privilege for Canada, than to stand the nearest of the dominions to the Old Land, between that Old Land and the other portions of the Empire, and close, on the other hand, to the great American people; and to bend her influence, as she is well able to do, from her geographical position and from the sentiments of her people, to the production of a perfect understanding between all those who speak the British tongue and value British institutions, whether they be in the Republic or in the Empire. If we could have such a perfect understanding between these peoples, we should indeed have taken the first and the greatest step towards a most effective League of Nations.
Now, I think I have touched upon all the subsidiary portions of the speech of His Excellency. The Government recognize, as any responsible government must at this time, that the main considerations of Government and Parliament for some time must gather around questions of finance, questions of trade, questions of the national financial obligations-and questions of tariff, if you like. So the Government have frankly and very honestly and courageously told us their views upon tariff, and that the tariff will be the main business of the session. I have no sympathy with the contention that there is any limit to the rights of this Parliament to deal with tariff questions in this session or in any other session so long as Parliament lasts. Why, Mr. Speaker, the tariff is and has been during all the time we have been a nation one of our methods of taxation, and to talk about any question of taxation being out of the purview of Parliament for a single moment is to talk what I conceive to be parliamentary nonsense. Neither, as I shall show when I come to deal, with the amendment, have I any sympathy with many other views that .have been expressed from this side of the House. I shall be glad if anything that falls from my lips this afternoon shall be of assistance to the Government in their investigations of tariff questions and in arriving at right conclusions before we reach the Budget, if we ever do reach it.
In entering upon this subject, I thought I could not do better than devote a little attention to a speech delivered in this Parliament by the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) during the last Budget debate. I do so because that speech is of importance, having regard to the source from

which it came, and also because it enables me to refer to some of the matters raised in the Governor General's speech. Indeed, the speech derived a fictitious importance! from the source from which it came, be-f cause it was delivered by a minister of the Crown who has since become Prime Minister of Canada. It was so important in the view of the party managers of my hon. friends opposite that, I understand, they printed 40,000 copies of it and sent it broadcast throughout Canada. The first part of it consisted of an almost impassioned defence of certain taxes which, I think, when the Budget was before us, were called "excise taxes." Like a good many other things, or people anyhow, that want to disappear, they adopted an alias and became "luxury taxes." The fate of those taxes is really the only comment that is necessary, the only answer that needs to be made to my right hon. friend as to his defence of those taxes at the time. A consideration of the fate of those taxes reminds me that this Government is very prone to political infanticide. I think, in the last two speeches from the Throne, the farmers from the West and producers generally throughout Canada were specially admonished to great efforts of production. In any case, I know members of the Government and many other hon. gentlemen opposite, before the war terminated and until last summer, took the opportunity, from platform and even from pulpit on Sunday evenings, and in Parliament, to urge upon the people efforts at increased production. I had, on principle, no objection to those efforts, but I said always that they needed to be supplemented by efforts on the part of the Administration to make arrangements whereby you could sell your product. The only way you will ever increase production is to make a ready sale for what is produced, and that was always my comment. But, referring to this matter of political infanticide, I notice that the question of production has disappeared from the speech from the Throne; it has disappeared from the speeches of hon. gentlemen opposite, and they are now concerned about sales. During the war there was almost no need to urge production, because we had the necessary inducement to produce; we had the inducement of the greatest markets we ever enjoyed, opened to us by the exigencies of the war, and our customers were foreign peoples and foreign governments. But perhaps the principal offender, or the principal worker as regards preaching this 26



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
principle of production, was the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) , who previously to last summer missed no opportunity, for at least two and a half years of preaching this doctrine, when suddenly the bottom fell out of prices, and he turned on his heel and he said: The trouble with this country is that the farmers have produced more than they can sell, and then he hopped off to Geneva. That was a nice thing for men in the West who, in obedience to the Government's injunction, had hired men at $6 a day and had lying on their hands stuff in abundance which they could not sell.
Another offspring of the Government that we do not hear much of in Parliament these days is called daylight saving. The Minister of Trade and Commerce dandled that interesting nursling on his knee for two sickly seasons, and then he handed it over to the chief nurse, the Prime Minister, who, at the bidding of forces, I do not know where, suffocated the infant with a pillow behind the Speaker's chair late one Friday evening.
I do not know what is the precise condition in which the Board of Commerce is now. It had a mixed parentage; it was not entirely the child of this Administration. I am afraid that with diabolical ingenuity the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) had something to do with leading the Government on to thin ice in that matter. I know, when they constituted the Board of Commerce, he said: We have been asking for this all the time. Well, he got it. But what is its precise condition now, I do not know. If it is alive, it is not functioning; we do not hear anything about it, and indeed, the only thing that we have seen of it lately has been the incursion of its late chairman into a by-election down in West Peterborough.
The Prime Minister, with numbers of others in the Government, came into power in this House with a pledge against free wheat. I took part, as my right hon. friend did, in the debates which preceded the election of 1911, and we were told that if ever free wheat was given, the keystone of the protectionist arch was gone. Well, it is gone, and it was taken away by the gentlemen who came in promising that they would never take it away.
The Prime Minister, when he came into power, was rather an enthusiastic advocate of indirect taxation. I am not at all sure if he did not make a speech doubting if the Federal Government had power-that

[Stage Direction]
was in his green and salad days-to put on an income tax. He shakes his head. Well, I have known lawyers to do that about things that were very doubtful. I remember the speech; but not being a lawyer and being a modest man, I am quite willing to admit that I may have misinterpreted it-especially a speech by my right hon friend. But for three years of the war he sat behind a Minister of Finance who said that an income tax was a bad tax for the country; that it could not be thought of. I am glad the present Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), who, by the way, is free from all those doings, states that this year he expects to collect $40,000,000 by income tax, and if he gets $80,000,000 next year, I shall not blame him; I am quite willing to have mine doubled. But the point is, the views of the Government on both these things went by the board. Now I was quite prepared when the Budget came down, for the luxury taxes to meet the same fate that so many of the infants of the Government had already met, but I must confess that I scarcely expected that we should see in this country or in any other British country a Budget introduced by Order in Council, because that is what happened. My hon. friend, for a good-natured man, nearly got angry with me when I told him he ought to think out his taxation proposals and bring them down in the Budget, and stand upon them for a year. I have been looking up in the recess some authorities on this question, although I did not need to, because I happened to know what I was talking about; but I looked up a speech of Mr. Gladstone's in which he laid down in Midlothian at seventy years of age certain elementary principles of finance. The principles which he claimed in that particular speech were also and equally subscribed to, by Mr. Goulbourn and Sir Robert Peel, on opposite sides of politics in the early days of Mr. Gladstone's political career. The first principle was one that this Government might very well practise:	"Never be afraid of
economy in detail." In that very speech the great Gladstone held up his hands in horror at the thought that somewhere in the Empire something of a (job) had been perpetrated by the creation of an office carrying with it the modest sum of £2,000, or $10,000, a year. If he had lived in our present day he would have seen almost any one of our provincial administrations, of whatever stripe, equal to creating one of these jobs over-night. Economy in detail; I pass that by, and come to his second great 
principle of finance, which was:	"You
ought to have one financial statement, and only one financial statement in the year." The reasons are obvious. My. hon. friend knows them now. He has had them brought under his notice by the people dealing in automobiles, and other of the manufacturers and traders of this country. When a Budget statement is brought down, a Government is prepared to stand or fall upon it, and must be, because while it is kept secret until actually brought down, immediately it is brought down tradesmen and dealers must be prepared to deal upon that Budget with the reasonably certain knowledge that the arrangements made in it will prevail until the next Budget statement. I do not want to spend too much of the time of the House in whipping a dead horse. The taxes are gone; but I take the liberty of inculcating this lesson in regard to them. It is melancholy to reflect, in regard to this question of political infanticide, that this House was kept up until seven in the morning to pass those taxes. We passed that Budget at seven o'clock in the morning, and in two minutes thi Minister of Finance destroyed the whole thing by an Order in Council. Then they talk about constitutionalism and the proper treatment of Parliament. Why, Sir, it is the most horrible treatment that ever was handed out to Parliament.
There is another lesson I would like to draw from these taxes. I called them at the time an internal tariff, and I told the minister exactly what he has since found out. I told him-indeed, I was too moderate-* that he would find these taxes difficult to collect. Well, it was far worse than that; they were impossible to collect. What happened was that the honest man paid the taxes and gathered them from his customers, and was troubled with all kinds of red tape because he did not send in proper statements, but men not so particular told the Government to go to the bow-wows, and did not collect the taxes at all. My hon. friend knows that happened all over the country. He knows now that the taxes are bad, and if he had only listened to me he would have known they were bad when they were brought down in the Budget. Well, the Prime Minister with his usual courage, which frequently amounts to daring, when asked in Peterborough about these taxes was ready with his answer,- he is always ready with his answer when anybody interrupts. He said:	The taxes
were right when the Government put them

on, and the Government is right in taking them off.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Michael Clark: And my hon.
friends opposite applaud. What can you do with reasoners of that description? The most slippery eel that ever slid through the waters was easily caught compared with men who will applaud a statement like that. My right hon. friend, as I said, gave rather an impassioned defence of the taxes in their original form. He sat behind the Minister, and voted for them in their altered form, and he sits there to-day just as docilely now that the Minister has passed them into the condition of the world before creation, that is, the condition of being without form and void.
I should like to ask the Administration at this point, do they really think they are justified in asking this House for a vote of confidence? I do not want to go into the details that have been offered so profusely from this side of the House, but it is true, however, that probably no Administration ever ruled as they have done during the last two-and-a-half years and had to apologize for so many discarded policies-and with each discarded policy they have parted with a piece of their personnel. Then they come to this House with all the assurance in the world and say: We are the men to govern you, we want a vote of confidence. I should like to know if they really think they are deserving of it. If they do, then I must proceed to other reasons why I do not think so.
I noticed this in the second part of my right hon. friend's speech last summer. That second part of his speech was a performance in which he showed much more than his usual courage, but much less than his usual discretion. Mr. Morley-Lord Morley, as he is now-said on a somewhat famous occasion that the economist who is not a politician gets into very serious scrapes; but, he said, they are nothing to the scrapes which the politician gets into who is not an economist. I could not help thinking of those words as I heard and read, as I have done several times, the speech in question of my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen). There was abundant internal evidence, if I am a judge, of the speech having been prepared from a brief; and if my diagnosis is a correct one, there never was able barrister so befooled by ill-informed solicitors. I know from the Prime Minister himself that it was prepared from a brief because he practically told us in the
speech that he had not studied these questions. That may be a surprise to him, but I am going to demonstrate that he practically told us he had not studied these questions. Fluency sometimes degenerates into flippancy, and I think it did so on this occasion. My hon. friend and leader (Mr. Crerar), had produced some figures in the House proving what I thought was admitted by all and deplored, in Canada, that there was a great deal of rural depopulation in Ontario. Those figures have been supplemented in very careful examinations by Mr. J. J. Morrison, the Secretary of the United Farmers of Ontario.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Michael Clark: I do not ask
hon. gentlemen opposite to have the least respect for Mr. Morrison; but if he were the least respectable man in the world, if his figures are according to Cocker, my friends have got to respect him for that. I thought we all knew there was rural depopulation. Well, what does my right hon. friend say on this subject? He says:
1 never saw a farm abandoned that appeared, at all events from the road, to be fit for anybody to farm.
My hon. friend studied the values of farms from the road, possibly when driving past in an automobile. His language admits it. Well now, my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) is on the whole a very faithful supporter of my right hon. friend; so is the hon. member for Dufferin (Mr. Best). They both know something about farming, and they know that no man in his senses will try to study whether or not a farm is really worth anything merely from a survey from the road. He will want to go on the land and look at it. But we are blessed with a Prime Minister who can tell you all about these things from the road; that is where he studied his political economy. Have not I gone far to prove that he had not looked into these matters as closely as he should have done? He has been far too busy hunting Bolsheviks. But he went further. He said: The figures are all against my hon. friend anyhow, because the prices of agricultural land are going up. Well, that is very much the same as if absolute ocular demonstration were brought to him that a certain tenant had left a certain house and he were to reply: But he cannot have left the house because the rent has been raised! Why, the raising of the rent might be the cause of his leaving.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh.


Michael Clark: You will notice, Mr. Speaker, I waited for the laughter of my right hon. friend and his supporters. A great deal of the rise in value of agricultural land is not due to the fact that the land is used; it is because of speculation in land. But what amount of rise in prices * will prove or disprove facts that are gathered by an examination into the population of the various areas of locality? -every such examination proving to the hilt that people are leaving the country districts and that many country districts in Ontario now have fewer people than before? But my right hon. friend could not ascertain these things from the road; he would need to go into the figures carefully and to study these matters zealously. Well, ill-prepared as he evidently was according to his own statement for dealing with this project, he nevertheless undertakes to show that the fiscal policy of Great Britain for seventy years has been a failure. His first step in the progression of fallacies by which he attempted to prove that contention was to state that since the year 1850 Great Britain had had what he calls an adverse balance of trade. Now,
I want to tell my right hon. friend-and on this point I am not going to reason with him; I am going to tell him what is so- that he is absolutely wrong in assuming, at the beginning of his thinking upon this subject, that an excess of imports over exports is necessarily an "adverse" balance of trade. It is not so. Adam Smith, the father of political economy, in his great book which is still the highest authority on political economy that ever was published, characterizes my right hon. friend's views as absurd,-too strong language, possibly, for Parliament, but not too strong for the old Scotch economist and philosopher, who goes on to say-and here he is not giving an opinion but history-that almost every nation in Europe had had its ruin prophesied because of this so-called adverse balance of trade, but that they had gone on to prosper. That is history, Sir; not opinion. Let me give two simple illustrations of the way in which the so-called adverse balance of trade of Britain was constituted, of what her excess of imports consisted. Suppose I go to a bank, Mr. Speaker, and borrow $1,000 at 8 per cent. At the end of twelve months I have to pay into the bank $1,080. Now, the bank takes in $1,080 where it only paid out $1,000; its
(Mr. M. Clark.]
imports exceed its exports. My right hon. friend says that that is an adverse balance of trade. Well, the bank never thought so, so far as its own interests were concerned; and certainly the borrower does not.- But that is exactly how half of Britain's excess of imports before the war was constituted. She accumulated so much wealth by her free trade that she had investments all over the world drawing interest, and the interest on these investments went into Britain in the shape of imports bought by individuals within the nation out of their -wealth, but constituting an excess of imports in the nation's trade balance. And just at this point, may I say to my right hon. friend, if he had studied these questions, if he had thought out these points, he would have known that people do not go on buying profusely year after year for seventy years out of poverty but out of prosperity. Let any hon. gentleman in this House try to conduct the business of buying, without the wherewithal to pay, in any store in Ottawa, and see if he can keep it up for seventy days, never mind seventy years. Now, I want to illustrate in another way another portion of what constituted Britain's excess of imports. Suppose I traded a yearling steer for 20 bushels of wheat with a neighbouring farmer. That would have been about a fair exchange a year and a half ago; a yearling steer, at prices then prevailing, would have been worth somewhere in the neighbourhood of twenty bushels of wheat. And suppose I arranged with my neighbour that I would take my steer over in my wagon and bring back the wheat. Clearly, so far as the carrying part of the business was concerned, that would not be a fair deal, and I would naturally, if I were a Canadian anyhow, say to my farmer neighbour; now, I want a couple of bushels extra for carrying both the steer and the wheat. And if the other man were at all reasonable he would give me twenty-two bushels of wheat instead of the twenty that bought the steer; that is to say, I should earn two bushels by doing the carrying both ways. My right hon. friend would call that an adverse balance of trade. Well, I would not; I would call it favourable to me to the extent of two bushels. And that is exactly what constituted the other half of the adverse balance of Britain's trade. Why, at the present moment she is building fifty-one per cent of the entire ships constructed in the world. Before the war she did the carrying trade of the world; and she earned by her carrying trade the other half of her excess imports. But that

was not adverse to Britain. The merest tyro in political economy knows that it provided her with that wealth which saved the fortunes of the world when she had to go to war and was able to realize on that wealth.
But I do not wonder that hon. members on the other side seem to get somewhat tired at my referring to Britain. I did not do so in the debate in which my right hon. friend spoke, and I do not wish to restrict my considerations to Britain now. This argument was introduced by himself in a way he felt to be rather peculiar at the time, because he admitted that the hon. member for Red Deer preceding him had not said quite so much about Britain as in former speeches. I shall show my hon. friend from the history of our own country that excess of imports is not necessarily an adverse balance of trade. We had what my hon. friend would call a favourable balance of trade in the year 1895. A Tory Government had been in power for seventeen years and they produced a "favourable" balance of trade, all right. We had a total trade of $202,000,000; we exported $102,000,000 and imported $100,000,000. Was the country prosperous then? If it was, why did they part with the Administration which had been running the National Policy for seventeen years? There is the fact. The total trade was a bagatelle; the nation was stagnant; at least I have always heard so, if I am not rightly informed upon the subject my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) and my hon. friend from Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) can repeat some of the speeches which were heard in such profusion about the lack of prosperity before 1896. And when I first came into this House-nobody pretended to tell me that the nation was prosperous at that time. What happened afterwards? Immediately after 1896 this country became prosperous. I do not want to argue this from the party point of view, but for some reason or other the people were prosperous. As the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier used to say, some of his opponents proved the prosperity of the country from books, but, said he, "I do not do it in that way, I do not need to. Everyone in my audience knows the country is prosperous because you have the evidence of it in your pockets." It was growing time of Canada. What was our balance of trade at that time? Why we imported hundreds of millions of dollars worth more every year than'we exported; it was the expanding time in Canada's history as a great nation. Now
these are the facts and I am exceedingly anxious to convince my right hon. friend.
I trust he will be a big figure in the public life of Canada long after this tongue is silent and these eyes are closed, and I take with a grain of salt his statement when he goes down to the eastern provinces saying that he has nailed the protectionist flag to the mast for life. A right hon. gentleman who can take three different views on the luxury taxes in six months is quite equal to changing his views on the tariff.
My right hon. friend said that Canada began to catch up in its business, by the way, in 1916. Now he is such a good friend of mine that I do not like to prefer a charge of want of generosity even against his arguments, but I do think that was an ungenerous argument. Why, does not everybody know that the nations of Europe were glad to import anything we could send to them in the way of food, and in the way of munitions, while the war was on? It was no trick, as we say on this side of the Atlantic, to do business in war time. They had to have the food, they had to have the munitions. The twenty millions of men fighting had to be fed and the food and the munitions were imported, of course, and we exported them from this side. But if we began to "catch up" in 1916 all I have got to say is we began to "catch down" very soon after my right hon. friend became Prime Minster, because the exports of Canada are not nearly as favourable now as they were at the time he spoke only last June-there has been a change in the scene since then. It is a remarkable fact, however, if it be a fact, [DOT] that in 1850 Britain began to have what he calls an adverse balance of trade, and in 1896 Canada began to have what he calls an adverse balance of trade, and at the moment they had it they began to prosper and to increase their total volume of trade and to become rich and a considerable people. That is how I read history on this question of balance of trade.
Now I am going to tell my right hon. friend when an excess of imports may become adverse. It is not so when it represents interest on capital invested abroad. It is not so when it represent the payment for carrying services done for all the nations of the globe. But it easily be-oomes so when it represents borrowings if those borrowings are carried too far. At the present moment we hear a great deal about the excess of our imports from the United States. Well, I do not think there is any mystery about those. I remember

when the ex-Minister of Finance raised a seventy million loan in the States during the war. I said I did not object to the loan, we had to get money somehow to carry on the war, but I told him year after year that a better way to get it would be by direct taxation. I said: Let the House understand what you are doing; when you are borrowing all this money you are employing the factories and workmen of the country from which you borrow, because your borrowings come in here in goods; and while a young country may go a certain distance in borrowing capital for its development it is very easy to go too far. I want to say here and now, Mr. Speaker, that with the magnificent asset of property which we have in our great territory, with its varied riches, what we want in this country is not so much capital as people. Bring people in of the right kind who will work up our resources. The wealth is there if you will enable them to work it up and produce by taking obstacles out of the way of the sale of the product. I do not think there is any doubt that Sir Edmund Walker was absolutely right in the last sentence he uttered in his recent statement to his shareholders, when he said: This country is all right but we need to go cautiously, for the outstanding sin of our people is extravagance and a readiness to contract debts. If that is true of the people, it is vastly more true not only of our Federal Government but of our municipal and our various provincial governments. We have got to work more for [DOT] our country and borrow less. Why, Sir, municipal and provincial bonds were issued in this country last year to the tune of $324,000,000; debts contracted upon our territory, that is what they were. Two hundred and twenty-three millions of this $324,000,000 are held in the United States and, as I say, the example was set to these municipal and provincial governments by the Federal Government, at least during the war. We have got, as my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) has said again and again, to borrow less. We have got to economize more. We have got to work harder and we have got to trade more freely. Well, I have laboured that point at considerable length; I could not avoid it. I have gone far to prove to the House that an excess of imports is not necessarily an adverse balance of trade. I have laboured the argument fully because if you grant the first point, of 
course the second is easy. My right hon. friend's next position in his progression of fallacies was that Britain having followed for seventy years a wrong method of trading, her people were poor in large sections and they were poor because of free trade. He says it must be so, Ban-nerman said so. Now it is true that Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman made a statement in a certain speech that there were twelve millions of British people near the poverty line. But what was he talking about when he made that statement? He was talking about the iniquitous land laws of Great Britain, and he was attributing the poverty to a wrong handling of the land of Britain and the need of different methods of taxation. But of all the men in the world, Sir Henry Bannerman was the last man to attribute any of the poverty of Britain to free trade; he was one of the greatest free trade supporters England ever had. But my right hon. friend comes along and says: Sir Henry Bannerman makes the statement. I do not know whether my right hon. friend knew where he made it, or what he was talking about. If he did know, then he said in effect: " The statement is true but Sir Henry's conclusion is all wrong; it is not the land laws of Britain that are wrong but the fiscal policy of Britain. Sir Henry did not know what he was talking about! He was only a member for thirty-nine years for one constituency and he had not had time to study this question." Then Mr. Rowntree said that Britain was poor. Well, Mr. Rowntree attributed a large amount of the poverty of Britain to intemperance, to the drinking of strong drink, and I think that the commonsense of every hon. gentleman will force him to admit that if a man works hard enough on Scotch whiskey with a limited income he will become poor whether' he is living under free trade or under protection. That was Mr. Rowntree's view.- But the Prime Minister says: " No, Mr. Rowntree does not know anything about it. It is free trade that makes the people poor."
Well, there is a method of testing this, apart from Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's opinions or Mr. Rowntree's opinions or the opinions of my right hon. friend. If he will read Macaulay's History of England he will find in the third chapter that in the time of Charles II, when there were only a few million people in Britain, there were 250 paupers in the thousand.

He mentions his authorities-statisticians, not the politicians whom my right hon. friend quotes. At the time when Macaulay wrote the third chapter of his History there were 80 paupers in the thousand; in 1872 there were only 40 paupers in the thousand-that was after free trade had been in operation a little over twenty years; and in 1907, a few years before the war broke out, pauperism had been reduced to 25 in the thousand. And from the time of free trade Britain's population had nearly doubled. That is the condition of poverty as far as it can be learned from the Board of Trade figures of the British Government. So that the second contention of my right hon. friend is just as baseless as the first. If it had been true that they had been following a wrong system of trading, of course it might have led to the poverty that there is in Britain and that there is in every big country- and that there has been for two thousand years, anyhow, because we were told then by an undisputed authority, that the poor we have always with us. If it had been true that Britain traded wrong, then it might be true that povery was the result of that wrong method of trading. But neither statement has one particle of support in the solid facts of the case.
The next step in my right hon friend's progress of fallacy is that he made a favourable comparison as regards United States labour in contrast with British labour. I had not had time to go fully into the conditions of labour in the United States, but I had quoted-and I think my right hon. friend was referring to that quotation-an article which appeared in a paper of the highest repute in the Old Country, written by Ernest Hodder Williams, a publicist in Britain of high standing, who had visited the United States almost every year. But he found his article upon the investigations of a journalist of the highest standing who is well known to the statesmen who attended the Peace Conference; his name is R. Stannard Baker. I am going to quote a single paragraph from that article, for the double reason that I think it is wise that we should know something at any rate about conditions of labour in the United States before we compare them unfavourably with conditions of labour in Britain; and if my right hon. friend is really an admirer of labour conditions in the United States, then the labour men of Canada should know it, because I think in that way they would avoid the policy which has produced this
condition. Mr. Williams, gathering his information from Mr. Baker, wrote:
One of the causes of the recent steel strike in America was the fact that the twelve-hour day and the seven-day week were so common in industry. Many men in the steel works lived at least four miles from the mill. They got up at four-thirty in the morning, at six o'clock they began work, going steadily until five in the afternoon, with no regular stop for luncheon hour, though during waiting periods they had time for something to eat; home at six o'clock, then after supper bed. They made big money, but they did not live-they existed, worked and slept. According to Judge Gary's own testimony, there are over 69,000 men in the United States Steel Corporation working twelve hours a day.
I defy my right hon. friend or any other man in this world to go into Britain to-day and find conditions of labour that will for one moment compare with what is brought out in that paragraph as prevailing in the great Steel Corporation, which is one of the glories of protection according to my right hon. friend.
The next step in the fallacy is perfectly natural. "Ireland has participated in the general ruin." I always thought that my right hon. friend's friends attributed the difficulties and troubles of Ireland to a very different cause. But it is all free trade, it appears, because my right hon. friend tells us, in almost his first incursion into economics, that free trade dwarfed the nascent industries of Ireland. Four million people inhabit Ireland. Its agriculture is one of the finest in the world. Before the war Ireland was producing the largest number of bushels of wheat to the acre of any country in Europe. That is an important industry. Who said it was dwarfed? They supply every year a large amount of Britain's need of store cattle. Has my right hon. friend ever heard of the tobacco industry of Ireland?-one of the greatest in Europe. He has heard of Irish linen? -the finest that is made anywhere. He has heard of Irish lace? If he has not, and his boat calls at Queenstown, he will see some of it in going over to England next May or June, for the Irish Women come on board ship to sell their lace -beautiful stuff. Has he heard of Ireland's shipbuilding? I venture the prophesy that in the next twelve months the Irish people who live in Belfast will build more ships than will be built in all Canada with the Canadian Government behind our shipbuilding industry. But my right hon. friend says in his review of history, that free trade has dwarfed the nascent industries of Ireland. Well, naturally where people

have been following the wrong system of trade they get poor, they have horrible conditions of labour, and they have been fleeing the country as they would a pest house. They must have been doing it for this reason-because my right hon. friend says so. He says that free trade has filled the emigrant ships with fugitives from their native land. Well, that is of all the causes of emigration from the British Isles the most recent cause that I have heard or read expounded. Why, Sir, in the early fifties of the last century a thousand people were leaving the British Isles every day, and then they were wondering whether those old lands would stand the drain on their blood and the strain of time and circumstance. The Old Land was struggling then up towards thirty million of people, and she sent out her thousand a day, and she has kept on sending them out all over the world. To-day in spite of that steady stream of emigration, she has neared the fifty million mark in population, and last year- good luck to her and God bless her?-she had the largest number of births in her history. Yet free trade has 'filled the British emigrant ships with fugitives from their native land!" Well, in Britain, they take a different view of this subject, as my hon. friend himself will in time. They say there, with pride:
We sailed wherever ship could sail;
We founded many a mighty state;
Heaven grant our greatness may not fail
Through craven fear of being great.
"Fugitives from their native land!" Why, my right hon. friend must be something of a "fugitive" himself. Where did his ancestors come from? His policies are a little medieval, but I never took him for an aboriginal. My right hon. friend has the reputation of being a fighter, and he deserves it. It is true, in a sense, that free trade was the cause of this expansion, and I submit to my right hon. friend the reason; you cannot travel abroad unless you have the price. They had ta stay in Britain under protection because they had not enough money to enable them to get out, but the moment they got free trade they expanded. It is true in a glorious sense, and if free trade has built the British Empire I want to say that that is the greatest of free trade's glories. My right hon. friend carries his fighting propensities too far when he fights with Providence for having built the British Empire; he must really restrain his terrible animosities a little. It is a fact that people do emigrate most when they are most prosper-

ous. As I say, they have the price and they also have the ambition, having done so well, to get out and try to do a little better. Of course, having had the "unfavourable balance of trade" and being "impoverished," and having had her industries "ruined" and having been obliged to "flee their native land," the people of Britain, my right hon. friend is persuaded, are about to desert a wrong policy, and he bases himself on the reports of certain committees. Well, I will concede this: that there are selfish men in Britain as well as in protectionist countries, and if they could persuade the government to change a fiscal policy by reports of committees so as to put illegal gains into their pockets, I am sorry to confess, there are Britishers who would take the gains. So they report that their trade would be helped-their particular trade- by the abandonment of free trade. My right hon. friend mentioned-and I take only one of his cases as an illustration-the matter of the iron and steel trade in Great Britain. He read the report of a committee asking for duties on iron and steel. But my hon. friend from Maisoneuve (Mr. Lemieux), punctured his argument on that point by putting one simple question: "Have the Government acted upon this report?" My right hon. friend was bound to answer that they had not, and I venture to prophesy that they will never dream of acting on it. I will tell my hon. friend why: iron and steel are the basic or building materials of the very greatest of Britain's industries. If Britain were to put a duty on iron and steel and make those things dearer, what would become of the cutlery trade of Sheffield; and what would become-which is vastly more important-of the shipbuilding of Great Britain, which is the glory of the country and of the Empire and which won the war? That is my answer to my right hon. friend upon this question: they will not tax iron and steel; do not let my right hon. friend, in trying to form an opinion about what is going to happen in Britain, attach too much importance to what the journeymen in politics say; I advise him to keep his eye upon the big figures in British public life, and that he listen to what they say. What are the Cecils saying about free trade? The moment there is a question of an antidumping law to keep out a few chemicals and a few tungsten burners, which bulk to a tremendous extent, I need not say, in the trade of Britain, the Cecils get restive and show an inclination to leave the Unionist Coalition over there, because they know

this question and they know that Britain's commercial greatness has depended upon her fiscal policy. Lord Derby is in the same boat-a man of enormous wealth and enormous responsibility and of great connections in Lancashire-he shows restiveness and an inclination to leave the Government. And what did Mr. Lloyd George himself say only a week ago? I draw particular attention to this, because Mr. Lloyd George is the head of the administration in Britain:
If international trade fails, I do not care what you do, you will have nothing hut starvation and ruin.
That being the opinion of the Prime Minister of Britain he is a very sanguine protectionist who would base the policy of this country upon any expectation that Britain is going to change her fiscal policy.
What about America in this connection? My hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cock-shutt) the other night asked us how we would feel if the Fordney Bill passed. Who is Fordney? I never heard of him until this Bill was brought in. He is a politician, of course, trying to implement his pledges to the farmers in the last election. That is not the place to go for American opinion. If you want to form an intelligent forecast of what America is likely to do on trade, go to her captains of industry; go to her great financiers; go to the New York journals, most of them. There are two supreme needs of America at the present moment; one is imports and one is exports-strange as that may appear. The financial magnates and the really instructed men who know about America's position in the world of trade and commerce know this; she must have imports, in the first place, because at Washington there are treasury bills variously estimated at from ten to fifteen billion dollars representing the debts of various foreign nations to America contracted during the war. These debts can only be discharged if America imports goods to pay for them, so that she must arrange her fiscal policy so as to go on importing. But these men that I speak of are equally clear in the view that America must develop a great export trade. They say, in so many words: she must follow the example of Britain in seeking outlets for the capital she accumulated during the war by helping foreign development through her investments abroad. They are under no misapprehension as to how Britain's so-called adverse balance of trade was caused; they want to send out their capital, and they say they must do it.
Now, it is a dangerous thing for one who has occupied the time of the House longer than he intended to inflict a quotation upon hon. members, but I have in my hand the Wall Street Journal of Friday last, containing a review of topics of taxation, the tariff, and America's foreign trade relations, by Thomas W. Lamont, one of the leading members of Pierpont Morgan and Company, and one of the greatest financiers and authorities on finance in the States. I do not apologize for reading this, because the opinions of such a man about what is likely to happen in the immediate future in connection with America's trade relations must have enormous weight with every thoughtful Canadian and must have an effect, if we are wise, on the steps we take in developing our own policy. I quote from this article:
I do not for a moment mean to suggest that this country should forthwith go to a free-trade basis. Anything approaching such a complete, change is impossible. But the tendency toward, freer trade is bound to become more marked. Our position before the war as a debtor nation was a far different one from what it is to-day. When in those days we sold food and raw materials for export we were able to find our pay for them in a number of different ways. The peoples abroad sold us services in the way of ocean transportation, they sold us insurance. Lastly, on a large scale, they loaned us capital, -which is only another way of saying that they provided credits with which we paid our own, imports.
Now the position is reversed. Prom being a nation in debt to the peoples abroad, to the extent of say $5,000,000,000, as we were in, 1914, we have become, on net balance, a creditor to the peoples abroad to the extent of $12,000,000,000, perhaps even $15,000,000,000, Therefore, whether we will it or not, from this time forward we must act the part of a creditor nation; we must be governed by the economic and commercial laws that govern creditor nations. We must begin to realize, if we do not already realize it, that we cannot continue to pile up these credits indefinitely without disarranging our own and the world's markets. In other words, we shall find our operations working against the old mercantile theory of trade, that same ancient theory that England, as a great creditor and commercial nation, found herself compelled to abandon a hundred and fifty years ago. We shall find ourselves ardently desiring to buy as well as to sell. If such shall prove to be the case-and I see no escape from it-we shall automatically tend toward freer trade. We shall inevitably grow to realize that the ideal status for the world is for our country to produce those things which it can product cheapest and best, and to exchange those things for the products of other countries which those countries are able to, produce better and more cheaply than we.
I shall not be surprised if the new Congress, realizing our country's enormously changed situation, will find the difficulties of thoroughgoing tariff revision so great that they may-abandon any immediate attempt at it.

This quotation will go on Hansard, and I trust my hon. friends opposite will peruse it carefully and find out what the really big men of the United States are saying and thinking about these things.
Such is the fairy tale that the Prime Minister of this Dominion told the House and the country in his speech on the last Budget. It is exactly contrary to the historic facts of the case. If my right hon. friend will acquaint himself, not with the views of economists, but with the writings of standard authors, he will know that Britain, at the end of her protective period, was steeped in poverty as regards the masses of her people. Read Carlyle's "Past and Present"; read the best works of fiction relating to that period; read Macaulay; read the speech which Emerson delivered at Manchester in 1847. The year after free trade was passed, but two years before it came into operation, Mr. Emerson, speaking at Manchester, referred to conditions prevailing at the end of the protective period as conditions of "gloom and commercial crises, affliction and beggary". That is the language, not of a Britisher, but of one of the most distinguished sons of New England in the United States. Since that time, Britain, by her fiscal policy, has increased enormously in wealth, in prosperity, in the comfort of her people and in the greatness of her world-wide destiny. That is the true history of the case.
I should like to have referred to some of the other arguments which my right hon. friend has used in the country in support of the policy to which he gives his honest and open adherence. He says: "We believe in protection"-and the address repeats the fallacy-"because it keeps the workmen at home and it keeps industries in Canada." It did not do that during the first years of the protective or so-called National Policy in this country. A million French-Canadians went to find their homes in the United States, and the population of Canada, at the end of the period, was practically stationary. It was when there was some slight departure, all too slight,
I admit, from that policy, that we in this country began to expand, and we would have expanded to a far greater degree if the departure had been greater. It begs the whole question.
Another argument used both by the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) and by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) is the argument of antiquity. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said, I think, down in Elgin, "Why,

we have had this policy in the United States for 141 years and in Canada for 42 years." My right hon. friend, showing how well he is adapted for being a leader by following his follower, took the figures from the latter and repeated them in the Eastern Townships of Quebec. Well, 141 years in the United States and 42 years in Canada-that is a very brief period in the history of a nation. It was only in 1776 that Adam Smith's work was published, and he knew so much of the difficulty of penetrating the human cranium with new ideas that he had very little expectation that his views would make much progress in his life-time. But if m>
right hon. friend wants to argue from antiquity, he should go further back. There was a king, who lived long ago; he was a very rich king, and he was a very wise king, wiser than my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen), wiser even than the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It is related of him: " And the king made silver and gold at Jerusalem as plenteous as stones, and cedar trees made he as the sycamore trees that are in the vale for abundance. And Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt and linen yarn; and the king's merchants received the linen yarn at a price." So that the wisest man that ever lived was not afraid of imports; he was a free trader; he would trade in Egypt or anywhere else where he could get good horses and linen, if the other people at Jerusalem would take the stuff those other countries produced and pay for it. My right hon. friend says-and in this he has also copied the argument of the Minister of Trade and Commerce

"England"-I prefer the term "Britain", myself, but we use the word "England" in that way-"England is the only nation that ever has gone in for free trade." Well, that may be so, though Holland, one of the brightest little countries in Europe, has gone pretty near it. But may I say to my right hon. friend that Britain is the only country that could have cleared the seven seas of every German ship in four months, and that is what my right hon. friend called "muddling through the war?" Britain is the only country that could have won the battle of Jutland, and she won it. Britain is the only country that established constitutional government hundreds of years ago, at a time when every other nation in Europe was a tyranny and North America was a wild. Was she wrong in blazing the trail in

that case? Was it to her disadvantage to have constitutional government? Was it rather not to the disadvantage of the laggards of human progress, for whom my right hon. friend becomes the apologist? I do not think the example of blazing the trail-the expression is a Canadian one-is one that we should be warned against by our leading statesmen in this fair young country. I think I have said enough to make my right hon. friend and my hon. friends opposite a little thoughtful about what Britain is likely to do, about what her free trade policy has done for her, and about what America is likely to do. They will become more thoughtful as the days go by. I gather, though, that a lot of the people of Canada are thinking a little differently now on this question from the way they used to think.
It is time I remembered that there is an amendment on the subject before the House-though I claim that every word that I have uttered is thoroughly germane to the subject and in line with the best traditions of debate. It cannot be said that I have in any way funked the main question in the Address, and I apologize for the time I have spent over it. Now, there is an amendment to the amendment. Well, that amendment to the amendment has no attractions for me, for two reasons. In the first place, when I heard it put forward, I reflected that in human life it frequently happens that people who try to sit between two stools presently find themselves occupying a more lowly posture. I do not care for the amendment from that practical point of view. But this amendment being before us, I think it is a fair thing to say that there are three possible views to be taken of it. We may vote complete confidence in the AdministratiiJh; we may vote partial confidence in the Administration; or we may vote no confidence in the Administration. One of these courses we may take in the first instance, and we may follow the other afterwards. Well, as I look at things, it would be impossible to vote partial confidence in the Administration first, and then vote no confidence in it afterwards. That would not be a logical course of procedure, so as far as I am concerned I shall vote as I feel, which on the grounds I have elaborated at great length is want of confidence in the Government. Not that the amendment is free from fault. One objection to the amendment to my mind, is that it states as a fact what
is not a fact. I do not think for one moment that the Prime Minister and his colleagues are guilty of usurpation. "Usurpation" is a word with a well-defined meaning. Usurpation is the seizure of Government by force against the constitution and against the law. I have not looked at the dictionary, but I have ventured on that definition myself. That being so, I think my hon. friend who proposed the amendment gave away his case when he admitted the Government were in office according to law and according to the constitution. The second objection is that it professes to wish to get a proper representation of the people. But if it were carried and an immediate election took place, that is just what it would not get. On this point I differ very, very acutely from my hon. friend the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean), when he says there is no need for redistribution to precede the election.
I think, in ordinary times, and under ordinary conditions, redistribution ought to precede the election, immediately if possible, or as nearly as possible; and if my hon. friend had been here I should have asked him what is the object of redistribution? It has only one object in the world- to get a proper representation of the people at the ensuing election. So, if the object of the amendment be to get a proper representation of the people, if it prevented redistribution it would fail in attaining that object.
There is another point in regard to representation which I would like to mention, and if the Government live long, enough to deal with the subject, I hope they will give serious consideration to it also. If the elections are going to take place in this country under conditions such as have prevailed recently we are going to he face to face with conditions under which constituencies will be very generally represented by minority members. In Elgin we had an hon. gentleman elected, whom I am very proud to have as a colleague-he could not help the circumstances, he had to run under the conditions that prevailed, hut he was voted for only by three-eighths of the constituents. In Peterborough only 4,000, in round numbers, voted for the successful candidate, out of 13,000 votes cast. If we are to have numerous candidates in single-member constituencies, I do not think it will make for stable conditions and the maintenance of the best kind of representation in the House, to have men elected to represent minorities, and I would ask the

minister seriously to consider when they come to the question of redistribution, if they ever do, the possibility of having the single transferable vote in single-member ridings and trying out proportional representation in given areas of the country. That is a matter deserving very serious consideration. We are living in times when changes are very rapid, and may easily become too rapid, and one of the great advantages of proportional representation is that it would give you some guarantee of having in each succeeding Parliament a fair proportion of men who, like my right hon. friend, have attained their political knowledge and political position by constant service, year after year, in the House of Commons. I would seriously impress that view on my right hon. friend. Let me put it plainly in other words. I think it is desirable that men of a certain size in our public life, so far as they are willing should be retained for the public service whether they call themselves Liberals, Tories, or Progressives. Politics is the science of Government, and like any other science, it can only be learned by application, and by the practice of it. In Great Britain a politician of a certain size is never lost to the public service until he is lost through death. If he loses his seat in one part of the country, he finds a seat in some other part, and under proportional representation I think that men of a certain size would be sure of getting elected to the House-not by any gerrymandering process, but by the process of giving proper representation to minorities. May I be very personal in the application of my argument? Let me suppose a case. My right hon. friend sits for Portage La Prairie. Now it might be-on personal grounds I hope it won't be-on personal grounds, I said-that Portage La Prairie will turn its back on my right hon. friend.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Oh, no.


Michael Clark: It is a possibility.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Oh, no.


Michael Clark: Well, of
course, people who are very sanguine before elections are liable to have their eyes opened when the elections take place. There may be strange things happen in Toronto. I am only begging for a possibility. I say, that might happen. Now I venture to think this: If you had a system of proportional representation in the city of Winnipeg, and my right hon. friend were one of the candidates his size would ensure that if there were five members,

he would come pretty near the head of the poll, because he would get the votes of men of size all over that great city. That is just a little illustration of how proportional representation might work out. It is a matter which the Government will have to consider very seriously if it wants to secure real representation in this House, if we are to have various groups running candidates in various parts of the country.


Mr. CURRIE:: How would you re-elect
newly appointed ministers?


Michael Clark: I always
thought that was an absurdity, an anachronism, better got rid of. There are many people in Great Britain, and more in Canada, who think that sending ministers back for re-election is really a thing of the past and ought to be abolished. I do not think there is much in that practice.
I have another objection to the amendment. It is contrary as far as I know, to the invariable practice of the Old Land in regard to amendments to the Address.
They nearly always hinge upon some question of principle, and I think it is well that that should be so. In this connection may I say that I think it is unfortunate that the official opposition in this House are apparently not in a position to take direct issue with my right hon. friend the Prime Minister upon the tariff question. I wish to be quite frank in this matter. My hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King), vith very great courtesy, has extended an invitation to Progressives all over Canada to fight under his banner. Well, there are reasons why consideration of that proposal is impossible, and I want to give them with perfect candour. In the first place, I believe it is impossible for a great party successfully to face the electorate speaking with two voices upon what is the main issue of the day. Now, I submit that in all kiifdness to my hon. friend. The Prime Minister, within his perfect rights, has agreed with the Progressive party and with my hon. friend himself that the tariff is a great issue to-day. The Prime Minister says it is the greatest issue. We agree with him and join issue with him on the question. We are opposed to the principle of protection; he is in favour of it. I submit to my hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King) that he should tell his friends that it is really impossible, in the serious condition of the minds of our people, to speak with two voices upon what is the great issue of the day. I hope my hon. friends opposite will applaud the next thing I say. It is impossible for a party

truly liberal to have any success linked to the medieval superstition or imposture of protection, and I may say that I borrow both these epithets from William Ewart Gladstone; he got light upon the tariff question when he was just about the age of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, and he came in his old age to look upon protection as a superstition and an imposture. I put it to my hon. friends in all seriousness that it is impossible for them to turn a friendly face to a superstition and an imposture. In this connection, may I remind the House that last year I quoted from a distinguished man who for so many years represented Quebec East? That constituency is still fortunate in having a distinguished man (Mr. Lapointe) for its representative and he gave a definition of Liberalism a couple of years ago which was very simple and easy to remember, and which I believe to be absolutely correct. He said that Liberalism *is freedom. Well, I hope he had in his mind besides freedom in religion and freedom in civil rights, freedom in trade also. If it is freedom it means ultimately some time freedom in trade as well as in other respects. And I want to say very seriously to my hon. friends from Quebec-I hope I shall not be charged with carrying on a courtship in that quarter, as so many of our public men have been, for if I court ' the people of Quebec, it is not for their votes or anything I want from them-I want to say to them that I should greatly value their intellectual and moral adhesion to my views. Let me say that in my opinion my hon. friend from Quebec East was right in his definition; Liberalism, historically as well as etymologically, means freedom. But let me carry his thought a little further. In fighting for freedom, how are the forces ranged? In fighting for freedom, from the time the word was used in 1828 and 1829 when Catholic Emancipation was carried and the Tests and Corporation Acts were repealed, and all down through the fights of Liberalism in Britain. I will tell my hon. friend how the forces were ranged. Liberalism was always fighting for the rights of the masses against the usurpation of the classes-using that word in a greatly different sense from the way it is used in the amendment. Well, how does protection stand in regard to the classes and the masses? Protection perpetuates the injustice of taxing the many for the sake of the few; it is an accentuated form of special privilege, and against special privilege,
whether in Canada or in Britain, all true Liberalism has always fought. On these grounds I appeal to the people of the province of Quebec to study these questions. There may be capitalists, there are capitalists, in the city of Montreal, who are protectionists, but Jean-Baptiste est libre-echangiste-pas mon ami, le "Jean-Bap-tiste'' de cette Chambre, mais le vrai Jean-Baptiste-; il est en faveur du libre-echange. Protection, standing as it does for special privilege, is typical Toryism. If you have any doubt look opposite and see who support it.
And that impels me to state that there is no course for us in this corner of the Chamber but to vote for the amendment in each division that will be called. In the first place, we canot vote a confidence which we do not feel, and in the next place, whether we will it or not, the Prime Minister, though he made an appeal to me-a compliment which I want to say sincerely I felt intensely-has made it impossible for me to vote for the Address. There are advantages accruing to the nailing of one's colours to the mast. My right hon. friend is being commended by his supporters because he has nailed his colours to the mast. He comes to me and says: "Nail your colours there too." But the mast is on a sinking ship from my point of view; I do not mean the ship of administration, but that battered medieval ship of protection. Now, my right hon. friend, in that speech on the last Budget which has got so much of my attention, gave me absolution beforehand for voting for the amendment. He said in that speech, when we were dealing with this same question on which the right hon. gentleman has nailed his colours to the mast:
I can understand a man whose feet are based on free trade voting against this budget; I cannot understand those who believe in the principle of protection voting against it.
So if my hon. friend'wants support from this House, according to his own showing, for this Address, which puts the principle of protection in its very heart and centre, if he can find any protectionists opposite he may fittingly make his appeal to them for help. But he cannot fittingly appeal to us. He is for protection; we do not believe in it. Having no confidence in the Administration, and having less if possible in its policy of protection, we shall vote, as I understand it, for the amendment.
My right hon. friend, in my opinion, was skating on very thin ice when he said: If you get your election by this bald amend-

ment-and I admit the hairless condition of the amendment-what will you be fighting on them? What will you have to go to the country on? Surely my right hon. friend knows that the moment a Government takes office in this country it is on its trial. It is composed of marked men. It can be tried any time properly by vote of censure in this House, and is always tried sooner or later before a higher and a final tribunal. It is the Government and its policy that we shall vote on if we go to the country. Besides my right hon. friend must know-I do not want to refer to recent elections at too great length, I am not greatly impressed by what Mr. Gladstone once called the science of political meteorology; if we in this corner of the Chamber had got as much excited as some people seem to do every time they win an election we should all have been in hopeless hysterics long ago; we have got so used to winning by-elections that they are like water on a duck's back with us, and do not excite us at all; passing events-my right hon. friend I say, must know by even a casual glance at recent by-elections that the choice at the present moment is not purely a choice between Grit and Tory. There are third choices and the people know it.
Something has been said qbout the issue being confused. My hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Henders) said my leader was not clear in his enunciation of policy. Well, he stands upon a policy that was drawn up by my hon. friend the member for Macdonald, absolutely.


Mr. CRERAR:: Hear, hear.


Michael Clark: My leader applauds me.
He has not departed from a single plank that my hon. friend put under him, he stands on it still. If my hon. friend is on it still, he is mighty near the edge waiting to jump off. There is no doubt about where we arS in this matter. My hon. friend from Swift Current (Mr. Argue) very properly and very fairly asked us on the cross-bench portion of the Chamber what mandate we had to be here. Well, I can only speak for myself on that subject. One afternoon in the House, after the war was over, my hon. friend the Minister of Marine (Mr. Ballantyne) brought in some question regarding shipbuilding. I took the liberty, which I have frequently taken in this House, to try and show him in very moderate language that he would promote shipbuilding if he would promote foreign trade-a thing

which appears tolerably evident to anybody who thinks out the subject-and the consequence was that within a few hours, two of the strongest protectionist speeches were delivered that I have ever heard in this House during the time I have sat in it; and I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the fumes that arose around me, to my trained nostrils were the fumes of Toryism and not Unionism. I was smoked out. I went to the cross-benches next day, I escaped for my life. Because I have breathed the air of freedom of opinion all the time I have lived, and freedom of trade as well. That is where I got my mandate. I told the people who elected me that I believed the same thing that I believed when they first elected me. When I was elected for Red Deer I was elected as a free trader. I believe in freedom. When I supported my right hon. friend in the war I believed that the greatest fight that was ever waged for freedom was being waged on the battle fields of Europe. I believed in freedom then, I believe in freedom now-freedom first and last for me. There has been no inconsistency about my position. If Liberalism means freedom then I am as good a Liberal to-day as ever I was. But for the time being we are " Progressives " because I have given reasons why I am a little doubtful about certain brands of Liberalism. Liberalism to me must be real Liberalism.
Do not let my right hon. friend have any trouble about what will go before the country. It is the Government that is always on its trial. It is on trial in this House, and the people have a second choice. Where, I think, those who want to return hon. gentlemen opposite, who want to return to the old methods of political thought, fail, is in not having a thorough appreciation of the psychology of the people at this time. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, the people of this country, and of every other country, are thinking in a way they have never thought before. There is a consciousness-which may in some cases be only a sub-consciousness-that having participated in common sacrifices, having escaped a common danger, having won a common and glorious victory, they ought to participate, to the full in the things for which the battle was fought and for which the victory was won. There is a democratic sentiment in this country, arising in all quarters of it, which cares little for old party names and less for old party shibboleths. I myself care very little for

detailed programmes. Tell me the spirit and the principle of a man or a party, and I will tell you whether that man is a Tory or whether he is a Progressive. It is the spirit that counts. We read in our newspapers and we said in our speeches during the war that the world would not be the same after the war, and it is not the same. It is not the same because everywhere there is a grim determination that democratic principles shall prevail among the peoples of the earth and that special privilege shall die. There is a determination that life and meaning shall be put into that old phrase which has been used from time immemorial on this side of the Atlantic: "Special privileges to none, equal rights and opportunities for all." There never was a time when the rank and file of the people, not only in Canada hut in all nations of the earth-and this is the issue that will be fought in the next election-were praying more earnestly, if not in the words in the thought of the old Corn Law rhymer, Ebenezer Elliott. During that supposed time of prosperity in Britain when protection prevailed, Ebenezer Elliott voiced the sentiments of the people themselves in regard to this matter -and he is voicing the sentiments of democratic people everywhere to-day-when he wrote:
When wilt Thou save the people, O God of , Mercy, When ?
The people, Lord, the people-not Crowns and Thrones, hut men.
God save the people, Thine they are,
Thy children, as Thy angels fair.
From guilt, oppression, and despair,
God save the people.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Militia) :: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House will agree that it has just had one of those very able, very learned, and very eloquent appeals to which the hon. member for Red Deer sometimes gives us an opportunity to listen. If we cannot on all occasions agree with the opinions or ideas advanced in this House by the hon. member for Red Deer, we can still join in paying this tribute to him, that he speaks with a vast amount of sincerity and a vast amount of boldness, because I believe he is one of the members of this House who is not afraid to state his actual opinion upon any occasion or upon any question.
I reg et, as we on this side of the House will regret, that upon this important occasion he considers it his duty to vote for the first amendment moved, namely, the want-of-confidence motion in the Administration. He has given to the House during the course of his two and a quarter hours' address reasons which, I am satisfied, appeal to him and convince him what is the right course for him to take. But they certainly are far wide of the reasons which have been advanced by the official leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) for voting want of confidence in this Government. There is no resemblance between the reasons advanced to-day by my hon. friend from Red Deer and the reasons advanced upon the opening day of the session by the official leader of the Opposition.
While I admit that my hon. friend from Red Deer was quite within his rights to take the stand which he has taken this afternoon, and to submit as his chief reason for voting in favour of this amendment the fact that he does not approve the fiscal policy of the Government, I realize, as I am sure the House will realize, that that has been the attitude of the hon. gentleman ever since the general election of 1917. He was not a supporter of the fiscal policy of the Government then, he is not a supporter of it now. If he has no confidence to-day in this Government on account of its fiscal policy, it is no new thing whatever, it is merely the repetition of an old idea or old attitude on his part.
I confess that we on this side of the House were pleased with the somewhat genuine and generous tribute of congratulation which he sounded at the opening of his speech towards the Government and those of us who support it. He spoke of the business properity and the contentment which has been pretty general in this country since the war, as we all know, and he attributed a limited amount of credit to the Government for this satisfactory condition, although I am prepared to say he gave the chief credit to Providence. He congratulated us also on the fact that there was a certain amount of prosperity now throughout the length and breadth of Canada. We are glad of his good opinion in this respect; and we are glad that he has been manly enough and bold enough to declare that in his estimation the charge of usurpation of office which was launched against this Government by the official leader of the Opposition on the opening day of the session is entirely unfounded and unjustified.
There was this to be said in regard to the argument of my hon. friend from Red Deer upon the fiscal question. After he had enumerated what, I imagine, were in his view the shortcomings of the Administration; after he had touched on the pro-

posal emanating from hon. members on this side of the House for the appointment of a Grain Commission; after he had made some very humorous comments upon that subject which is known in this House as Daylight Saving; after he had enlarged more or less upon the luxury taxes and declared, what he had always declared for three sessions, must eventually prevail, then he turned round and said, "For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I shall vote no confidence in the Government; hut I can find other and stronger reasons for such a vote when I refer to the speech delivered in this House eight or ten months ago upon the tariff question by the right hon. gentleman who now leads the Government."
I am afraid that that speech of the right hon. leader of the Government made a deep impression upon the hon. member for Red Deer. I believe that last session he was not satisfied with himself in respect of that speech. I think he tried very hard to obtain an opportunity to deliver a second speech upon the subject of the Budget by way of reply to the speech of my right hon. friend, and it seems to me that for eight or ten months back my hon. friend from Red Deer has been nursing this sore question in his heart, he has been pondering over that speech, and this afternoon he has given the House his deliverance upon the question.
My hon. friend will forgive me if I do not attempt to follow him into what I think I might fairly describe as an academic discussion of the fiscal and economic policy of Great Britain. For over one hour to-day he elaborated that fiscal system and his own particular views thereon. Now, I am not greatly concerned, neither is this House, with what is the precise fiscal policy today in Great Britain. We are concerned, and vitally concerned, as to what is the fiscal policy to-day and for the future in the Dominion of Canada. And if I do not further allude to my hon. friend's very able and very learned discussion of the British trade policy, he must not think that I have not been thoroughly impressed by his knowledge of the whole vast subject, and that I am not fully aware that he, of all men perhaps in this House, is best able to discuss the British fiscal system; but I do not think that the time of the House is as well occupied in a discussion of that subject as it would be in a discussion of our own fiscal system.
However, my hon. friend did take huge satisfaction to himself by demonstrating to a conclusion, in his opinion, that an adverse balance of trade was a real benefit
[Mr. Guthrie.!
to a country, and that irrespective of whether that country were Great Britain or Canada. Now, to my mind the two cases are not parallel at all. There is a tremendous lack of similarity between them; the conditions are wide apart. My. hon. friend from Red Deer justified his statement that prosperity reigned in Great Britain when there was an excess of imports over exports by reason of two facts -the immense British investments overseas from which handsome revenues were returned; and Great Britain's control of the world's shipping from which also tremendous revenues were returned. These were the two facts which justified his statement to-day that Britain prospered under what we call an "adverse balance of trade." When he turns to the Dominion of Canada, let me point out to him, both these conditions are absent. Canada, we are forced regretfully to admit, has no foreign investments to speak of. Canada does not er*joy the world's foreign carrying trade. These two sources of revenue, which offset the effect of an adverse balance, are absent in the Dominion of Canada, and if your adverse balance piles up the day will come sooner or later when the balance must be met, and must be met in the only currency the world recognizes-that is, gold. My hon. friend says that in 1895, although our imports were valued at $100,000,000 and our exports at $102,000,000, prosperity did not reign within, the Dominion of Canada. Then, he said, as our adverse trade balance began to climb up, our prosperity seemed to return. Yes, it is true our prosperity did seem to return; as our balance kept piling up it seemed that there was greater prosperity in Canada. But I think we were a little short-sighted. We do not feel the effects of the adverse balance of trade the first year, or the second year, or, perhaps, the fifth or the tenth year; but we are feeling it to-day and we shall feel it for many a year to come-until the situation in this country is righted. Let me point out this to my hon. friend: just at this moment- and I am speaking only in approximate figures-I understand that we are buying annually a billion dollars worth of goods from the United States, and we are selling to them about half that amount. We might carry that on for a few years, but the day of settlement is bound to come, and how are we going to settle? The day of settlement is at hand now, unfortunately, and we are settling by going out in the market and buying American currency, and by doing that we are depreciating our own dollar or

appreciating the American dollar-and you have the exchange situation. If you continue to purchase from the United States annually and in vast amounts more than you sell to them; if you keep piling ujd that adverse balance, your exchange is going to get lower and lower. There are two ways that I know of, and only two, of correcting that. You can correct it by selling the United States more goods, or you can correct it by ceasing to buy so much goods from the United States.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe that in touching on this question of purchasing from the United States I am touching directly upon one of the questions which is very near and dear to the heart of the Agrarian party, or to that portion of it which belongs to the United Grain Growers.
I know that it has almost become a principle with that organization to deal as far as possible with the people in the United States, disregardful of whether or not injury results to the traders of Canada. I mention this matter particularly at this time on account of a statement which was made in the House last Friday night by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. J. F. Reid). Fortunately or unfortunately for me, about a month ago I had occasion to make a speech in the riding of South York, represented by my hon. friend who sits next to me (Mr. W. F. Maclean). During the course of my remarks on that occasion I was dealing with the question of the tariff policy of the party known as the United Farmers' party. I was dealing with that plank which demanded free trade in agricultural implements, and I pointed out to my audience on that occasion that it would suit the purposes of the United Grain Growers and the Farmers' party generally if they could obtain free trade in implements, and that, strange as it may seem, that organization has for a long period of years past been dealing in agricultural implements in the western part of this country almost exclusively with firms and manufacturing establishments in the United States. A report of that meeting seems to have got into the newspapers-not an accurate report, but I do not know that I have very much complaint to make with regard to it. It seems to have been published pretty generally; it was one of those telegraphic reports that do get into the papers. It was referred to and put on Hansard the other day by the hon. member for Mackenzie. The part to which I wish to draw attention at this time is reported 27
in Hansard, unrevised edition, at page 353. It says, among other things:
The ploughs listed in the catalogue, Mr. Guthrie said, were made in Wisconsin; harrows, cultivators, mowers, etc., in Illinois; portable engines and washing machines in Pontiac, 111. ; cream separators in Buffalo, N.Y.; and wagons in Iowa.
Then the report purports to give my exact words, because what follows is in inverted commas:
"In the lines of goods which I have mentioned, which are called 'U. G. G. goods'," Mr. Guthrie said, "there is not a Canadian article catalogued."
I take no exception to that report of my speech save in one particular-I did not mention wagon. I mentioned the other things but made no reference to wagons. Now, that statement of mine was contradicted by Mr. Rice-Jones, general manager and vice president of the United Grain Growers. He gave a report to the press, and it is in regard to that statement that I wish to place some information before the House-particularly in view of the fact that I am in the presence of the president of the United Grain Growers, if I judge aright from the catalogue of that organization, which I have before me. Mr. Rice-Jones, in his statement, which is reported at page 353 of Hansard, says:
The Hon. Hugh Guthrie's statement as reported in a despatch is incorrect. He states there is not a Canadian article in the machinery listed in our catalogue as United Grain Growers.
Now, I did not state that, but it is pretty nearly the truth, as I am going to prove. The statement goes on:
Even the list of machinery which is specifically mentioned as being manufactured in the United States is incorrect.
I am subject to correction. Then he goes on:
Mowers and rakes and wagons, for instance, are all purchased in Canada.
When I saw that contradiction published in the papers, I thought that in justice to myself I had better look the matter up again, and the first place I looked was in the sworn testimony of Mr. Rice-Jones given before the Tariff Commission. I obtained an extract from it, and I am going to read it to the House so that it will go on Hansard. Mr. Rice-Jones appeared before the Tariff Commission at Winnipeg, and after having made a statement of how much more cheaply he could sell his goods out there if there was no tariff, the chairman of the commission



began to ask him some questions. Now, this is from the record; I will give the evidence:
Sir Henry Drayton: Where do you get this machinery from? From whom do you buy your plow?
Mr." Rice-Jones: It is the Lacrosse plow.
Sir Henry Drayton: From whom do you buy your cultivator ?
Mr. Rice-Jones: From the Light Draft Harrow Company.
Sir Henry Drayton: Where do you get it?
Mr. Rice-Jones: It comes from Ohio.
Sir Henry Drayton: What is the name of the firm?
Mr. Rice-Jones:	The Light Draft Harrow
Company.
Sir Henry Drayton: What is the name of their home town?
Mr. Rice-Jones:	I cannot recall the name
just now; I can get it for you.
Sir Henry Drayton: It cannot be a very well known name.
Mr. Rice-Jones: It is just a small company.
Sir Henry Drayton:	Is that concern just
manufacturing for you?
Mr. Rice-Jones: No.
Sir Henry Drayton:	Is it a concern with
which you have made a special contract?
Mr. Rice-Jones: No.
Sir Henry Drayton: The next is "seed-drill 20 single disc." Where do you get that?
Mr. Rice-Jones : At Lacrosse.
Sir Henry Drayton: That is Lacrosse, Wisconsin?
Mr. Rice-Jones: Yes.
Sir Henry Drayton: Where do you get the washing-machine ?
Mr. Rice-Jones: From the Meadows people.
Sir Henry Drayton: Where are they?
Mr. Rice-Jones: I cannot tell you offhand where their plant is.
Sir Henry Drayton : You do not know?
Mr. Rice-Jones: Ohio.
Sir Henry Drayton:	Where do the grain
grinders come from?
Mr. Rice-Jones: The Letz Company.
Sir Henry Drayton:	Where do they come
from?	.
Mr. Rice-Jones:	I think their plant is in
Wisconsin.
Sir Henry Drayton: You think it is in Wisconsin?
Mr. Rice-Jones: Yes. I can get you that information.
Sir Henry Drayton:	I was just wondering
where these places were and you do not appear to know anything about them. Where do you get the small gas engines?
Mr. Rice-Jones: From the Hercules Gas Engine Company of Evansville, Indiana.
Sir Henry Drayton: The disc harrow?
Mr. Rice-Jones: Lacrosse.
Sir Henry Drayton : The mower?
Mr. Rice-Jones:	From the Acme Mowing
Machine Company of Dayton, Ohio.
Sir Henry Drayton: The hay buncher?
Mr. Rice-Jones: The same; Davton, Ohio.
Sir Henry Drayton : The road grader?
Mr. Rice-Jones: From J. D. Adams & Son, Indianapolis.
Sir Henry Drayton:	The road maintainer?
Mr. Rice-Jones: The same.
I am going to emphasize that because of Mr. Rice-Jones' statement that mowers and rakes and wagons, for instance, are

all purchased in Canada, and yet he swore before the Tariff Commission that he bought his mowers at Dayton, Ohio.


John Archibald Maharg: What was the date of the hearing?


Hugh Guthrie: I think the date of the Tariff Commission would be about September, October, or November of last year. I do not think I said anything about wagons at South York but I began to look through the catalogue on the subject of wagons, and if I did say anything about wagons, I do not know that I made such a terrible blunder. Mr. Rice-Jones says in regard to wagons: "In fact, we have not purchased a wagon in the United States for three years." I turn to their catalogue -this is not the most recent one, it is the one for 1919-and I read in it about a wagon called the "Abingdon" wagon. This is what the catalogue says at page 74:
The "Abingdon" is known throughout Western Canada as one of the highest grade imported farm wagons in Canadian service. For some time the importation of the finest American-made wagons has been practically impossible, but our extensive purchases, made at an early date, enable us to continue to offer them.
That is the denial of the statement of Mr. Rice-Jones, so that I do not think I was so far astray in what I said. The point I was trying to make was this-and I will make it briefly now-that in almost the whole list of farm implements and farm machinery, scarcely a single article sold by the United Grain Growers and advertised in their catalogue is of Canadian manufacture; almost exclusively this farm machinery is of American manufacture.
I am now going over the list a little more carefully. I do not find that the United Grain Growers Association sell what we call threshing machines; I do not find them advertising threshing machines or binders; but I do find them advertising the following farm machinery, and I say that according to their catalogue and the sworn statement of Mr. Rice-Jones the great bulk of it is American manufacture:	Ploughs, disc
harrows, common harrows, seed drills, cultivators, "Forkner" cultivators, haying machinery, including mowers, rakes, bunchers, sweep rakes, stackers, tedders, grain grinders, potato planters, sprayers, and diggers, portable elevators, gas engines, cream separators, washing machines, road machinery, manure spreaders, "Abingdon" wagons.
I can not find in that long list a single

article made in Canada unless it be a steel rake. I can go further; I can even identify most of the articles from the plates upon them. I can tell precisely the factories in which most of these goods were turned out, because I have made it my business to get that information, and while my hon. friend is in the humour and in his place, I should like to ask him one question that he can probably answer. If he does not want to do so, it does not matter. In this catalogue a large motor truck is advertised and greatly commended. I have been told that the Smith Form-a-truck is of American manufacture. I have not been able to verify that, but perhaps my hon. friend, who is president of the company, can bell me whether that is the case or not.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I regret I cannot give my hon. friend the information.


Hugh Guthrie: It is about the only thing that could be called a farm implement that might possibly be of Canadian manufacture, except also a little grinder manufactured in Quebec, and I will give my hon. friend and his company full credit for that. But what is this organization doing? What is the party supported by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) doing to-day? Look at the millions upon millions of dollars that are going out of this country every year to buy American machinery and pile up an adverse balance of trade. Is it any wonder that one of the foremost planks in the tariff policy of the Farmers' party is the plank calling for free farm implements? They are paying now only from twelve and one-half to fifteen, indeed, I think in some cases as high as twenty per cent, in duty, but in spite of that tariff, they are successfully bringing into this country and selling to a tremendous number of people in the West, American farm machinery against the competition of Canadian manufacturers. If they can do this with a duty of twelve or fifteen or twenty per cent against them, what will they do should they come into power and wipe out that little bit of protection and give free trade in implements? If the free implement plank were adopted in Canada, they would increase their purchases with the United States enormously, because there would be no barrier at all to prevent them; it would be a matter of only a few weeks, or at most a few months, until they would be in a position to close up practically all the industries in this country engaged to-day in the production of that class of material.
But there is another point of view in regard to this matter. It is said that we in Canada are to-day suffering, to some extent at least, from unemployment. Is it a patriotic thing, or a sound thing economically, to take the money of the people of Canada at this critical period, to send it across to the United States to give employment in the factories there, to pay wages and keep employed citizdns of the United States, while so many good Canadians during the past few months have been looking for jobs in this country? Would it not, in the first place, be a more patriotic thing, and in the second place, a sounder thing economically, if the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), and his friends of the United Grain Growers, would look about them in this country to the scores, yes, even hundreds, of Canadian manufacturers who can supply the goods they require, and try to make terms with them, spend their money in this country and thus give employment to unemployed Canadians.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It will be-


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend can follow me, but I do not wish to be interrupted. I am going to give my hon. friend a few details in regard to the manufacture of these articles, and he can take the matter up with his people when he goes home. I will deal with the question of gas engines, which alone forms a big item. Does the House know that to-day gas engines are manufactured in 65 Canadian factories, and the only kerosene or gasoline engine that the Grain Growers advertise is the "Hercules" machine made in the United States, every variety and style of it is here advertised and not a single one the product of the 65 factories scattered throughout the provinces of the Dominion. I will supply a list of these manufacturers to my hon. friend if he will make use of it. I come now to the question of cultivators. He will not for one minute say he cannot buy just as good a cultivator in Canada as he can in the United States.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: They will not sell them
to us.


Hugh Guthrie: Fourteen	factories
in this country to-day, employing Canadian labour, are turning out cultivators just as good as can be bought anywhere in the United States, but not a single Canadian cultivator does this company sell or advertise in their catalogue.
I come next to grain grinders. Mr. Rice-Tones says that they adopt the Letz-

which is made in the United States. Now there are no less than eighteen firms in Canada making grain grinders, and from all I can gather there are better grain grinders made in Canada than in the United States. There again they give the American manufacturers the preference by advertising exclusively American-made machines, and excluding all the eighteen manufacturers of grain grinders in this country.
I come now to power washing machines. Many of the machines I have mentioned are made in the riding I have the honour to represent, and I feel keenly interested in the matter. Cultivators are made in South Wellington, gas engines are made in South Wellington, power washing machines are made in South Wellington. I would like to see the factories in the riding I have the honour to represent receive some of these orders, and thereby give employment to men in the province of Ontario. Fifteen factories in the Dominion of Canada are making these power washing machines, employing Canadian labour, but with not one of them does the United Grain Growers deal. Not a single Canadian washing machine do they advertise in their catalogue. In every instance they advertise the American machine.
So it is with the cream separator. I am told they are making cream separators at Renfrew, and very good ones too. I know they are making good ones at Peterborough, I know they are making good ones at Hamilton, but in spite of this fact this patriotic organization of traders in the great West deliberately decides to advertise and sell the King separator, made in Buffalo, New York. It will not sell a single Canadian-made separator. It is all very well for the president of that company to occupy a seat in this House and try to interrupt; but I bring this matter forward in order to give the public the facts, to put the facts on Hansard, and then let the Grain Growers' Guide publish these facts broadcast if it will. My attention has been drawn very forcibly within the last month to the fact they are publishing things about me and at the same time are misquoting what I said. Now I will give them a chance to quote from Hansard what I actually do say, and see if they will publish it.
There is one statement in the press despatch reporting an alleged speech I made in South York which is certainly not correct. It is reported in that despatch that I said the Grain Growers or the

Farmers' party was " a menace to Canada." I never used that word, nor anything that sounded like it, nor any word that bore its meaning. I did say this, in the course of my remarks, that the most serious opposition in this country to the present Government was to be found in the Farmers' party. I said it was a party that had its origin in the far West among a population which was not entirely British, where the farming population, I believed, of the western provinces was said to be about 60 per cent foreign-born and about 40 per cent British-born. I said I had information that the movement had its genesis among the American farmers in the great West, that they were of a class of people who desired to trade with the people back home, and evidently from this catalogue, they were determined to carry out their desires. I said the movement had started in the West, but had swept eastward. It had taken a strong hold in Ontario and had now got down to the Maritime Provinces and I paid them the compliment of saying they were the most formidable opposition which the Government had politically in Canada to-day. I made no statement that they were a menace to Canada, as I am quoted in the press despatch as saying, and to which statement such severe exceptions was taken by my hon. friend from Mackenzie (Mr. Reid) the other night.
I think I can also pay them this further compliment-that so far as the province of Ontario is concerned, we know pretty well where the Farmers' party stands in respect to the tariff. There is no question in the world where the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), stands on the tariff. He is a free-trader out-and-out, first, last and all the time. He proclaimed to-day as forcibly as any man could proclaim that while the hon. member for Yale (Mr. MacKelvie), desired protection on apples, he, the member for Red Deer, desired free trade in apples, that while the member for Yale desired to make apples dear, he, as a free trader, desired to make apples cheap. Now will he be consistent and apply that same argument to wheat? If his desire is to cheapen everything in this country, I can tell him that a cheap country is not the best country to live in for anybody. It never was, and I think it never will be. But I will say this for my hon. friend from Red Deer: he is outspoken, you know where he stands.
I can also pay that tribute to the leader of the Farmers' party in the province of Ontario; I assume that Mr. Drury is the

leader of the Farmers' party in Ontario.
I do not know whether he owes allegiance to, or is a follower of, my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar), but he is at all events the recognized leader of the Farmers' party in Ontario. I have never yet heard a fair, candid statement from my hon. friend from Marquette as to his tariff policy. I have heard him talking in the language of free trade one minute, and not of free trade the next. I have heard him say he would not be a free trader "in one fell swoop," and I read in a speech he made somewhere in the West that he was a free trader "by easy stages." I do not know exactly what he would do if he came into power in this country, but it is not so with the Prime Minister of Ontario. He gave us a sworn statement on this question, so we cannot question his stand. He was sworn before the committee of this House on the High Cost of Living, in 1919, and in looking over the evidence I find that at page 194, he says: "I want free trade on the manufactured goods."
That is short, concise, and direct. We know where Mr. Drury stands, and the point I desire to make is that we insist upon knowing where the rest of this House stands on the question of the tariff. There is so much pussy-footing, so much camouflage, so much soft-pedalling in the East, and so much loud pedalling on the free trade doctrine in the West, that it is pretty hard to know just where the official Opposition stands to-day, with the exception of my good friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster). He is outspoken enough, I think, to satisfy most of the people of this country. To my mind, he is a very outspoken free-trader. Having said so much, I cannot say anything about the remainder of the official Liberal party in this House, and I believe it is time the House knew, and time likewise the country knew, just where they stand. I think one of the most important matters at this particular moment is that someone devise some means of having at the earliest possible moment a clear-cut declaration, by a vote, to establish where each and every member of this House stands on the tariff policies that have from time to time been proclaimed in Canada. A delicious sidelight was thrown on the situation by our good friend the member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville (Mr. Gauthier), when in his speech in the House the other day he described in his own clear and graphic manner how the Liberal fiscal policy was framed at the Liberal convention in Ottawa in the year 1919.
He evidently was a member of the committee which was charged with the preparation of the plank in regard to the fiscal policy. He described to us how they met in their committee room, and how the presiding officer on that occasion, the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), true to his-


Mr. FIELDING:: Will the hon. member pardon me? He is mistaken; I was not the presiding officer.


Hugh Guthrie: Well, a prominent
member of the committee I should say. However, the hon. member certainly pictured to us how eloquently the member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) had pointed out, in the presence of the members of that committee, his view of the matter at all events, which was that the Liberal party was the historic free trade party in this country, that it was the real free trade party in Canada, but that he was completely brushed aside by his friend, the member for Shelburne and Queen's, who interjected: "In theory, we are a free trade party, but only in theory."
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Eecess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with a brief discussion of the platform of the various parties in regard to the fiscal question, I Wish to say that I omitted before the adjournment to make reference to one statement made by my hon. friend from Red Deer during the course of his remarks this afternoon. It was in reference to his argument upon the question of the balance of trade. Among other things, he mentioned that the municipalities and the provinces of this country were rapidly piling up debt in the United States. This fact, he said, had an influence upon the question of the balance of trade as between Canada and the United States, and, in some way, he seemed to charge this Government with responsibility in respect of these municipal and provincial loans.
Now, as a matter of fact, the indebtedness of this Government to the United States at the present time is in a very satisfactory position. We know that we have a net indebtedness in Canada of about two and a quarter billions, but it is a gratifying thing to know that a very large proportion of this net debt is owed within our own

borders and to our own people. I suppose it goes without saying that debt cannot be considered as a good thing under any circumstances, but I think a national indebtedness is least objectionable when it is owed to your own people. Approximately, our debt as a nation in the United States today is about one hundred and seventy-five millions. We owe Great Britain, I think, about double that amount, but apart from these two items the whole indebtedness of this country is practically confined within our own borders. This Government has nothing to do with provincial or municipal borrowing. Provincial and municipal borrowing is not a new thing. It has been going on, I think, ever since the days of Confederation, and in pre-Confederation times also, but there is this difference today in regard to provincial and municipal loans. Formerly those loans were negotiated in London. To-day they are negotiated in New York, and if these loans add to the burden, or the adverse balance, of this country in respect of trade between Canada and the United States, the rebuke of my hon. friend from Red Deer should have been directed against the provinces and the municipalities of this country.
It is argued from time to time that the adverse trade balance as between Canada and the United States has no influence upon the present discount on Canadian money in the United States. It has been argued in my hearing that year after year when, as between the two countries, there was an adverse balance of trade, our money was never at a discount, our money was always at par. Consequently, it is said that an adverse balance of trade has nothing to do with the matter. But, Mr. Speaker, this must also be remembered: In those pre-war years this country, the corporations in this country, the provinces and the municipalities, were all heavy borrowers and in those days our borrowings were in Europe. Our borrowings were in London, in Holland, and in France, and by far the greatest portion of them were financed through New York, and this foreign borrowing, coming through American exchanges to a large extent, rectified the balance of trade and assisted in keeping our exchange level. But we have no foreign borrowings nowadays. We cannot raise money to-day in the London money markets. We cannot raise money to-day in European countries, we cannot avail ourselves of that source of relief in regard to the exchange. As I intimated before six o'clock, so far as I am 
aware there are only two ways of rectifying the adverse exchange-the one by seeing more goods, and the other by ceasing our overpurchases in the United States.
I was proceeding to examine what one might call the official Opposition platform in regard to the fiscal policy in this country. I think that I had remarked that my hon. friend from St. Hyacinthe-Rouville (Mr. Gauthier) had given the House a most graphic description of the manner in which that policy was formed and adopted by the Liberal Convention which assembled in the city of Ottawa in the summer of 1919. After the policy had been thought out, considered, and formally adopted, it was sent broadcast throughout the Dominion of Canada. Official copies were issued in modest pamphlets such as the one I hold in my hand, and more elaborate publications appeared, with portraits of the leading spirits in the Convention, and were sold in the bookstores at a rate as high as a dollar a piece. Naturally the resolution upon the tariff is one of the important pronouncements of the Liberal Convention. It is not a long pronouncement and it will not hurt if I place it on Hansard in connection with my remarks. It is called simply "Resolution on the Tariff" and reads as follows:
That the best interests of Canada demand that substantial reductions of the burdens of customs taxation be made with a view to the accomplishing: of two purposes of the highest importance: First: diminishing the very high cost of living which presses so severely on the masses of the people; second: reducing the cost of the instruments of production in the industries based on the natural resources of the Dominion, the vigorous development of which is essential to the progress and prosperity of our country.
That, to these ends, wheat, wheat flour, and all products of wheat; the principal articles of food; farm implements and machinery; farm tractors, mining, flour and saw-mill machinery and repair parts thereof; rough and partly dressed lumber; gasoline, illuminating, lubricating and fuel oils ; nets, net-twines, and fishermen's equipments: cement and fertilizers should be free from customs duties, as well as the raw material entering into the same.
That a revision downwards of the tariff should be made whereby substantial reductions should be effected in the duties on wearing apparel and footwear, and on other articles of general consumption (other than luxuries), as well as on the raw material entering into the manufacture of the same.
That the British preference be increased to fifty per cent of the general tariff.
And the Liberal party hereby pledges itself to implement by legislation the provision of this resolution when returned to power.
Some hon. GENTLEMEN: Hear, hear. Mr. GUTHRIE: V,Tell, Mr. Speaker, the applause from the Opposition was. not

very general. I noticed that in some quarters there was no applause at all; and that is my chief objection to the manner in which this tariff plank of the Liberal policy is being dealt with by the official Opposition throughout the length and breadth of Canada to-day. It only seems to apply in spots either in the country or in this House. But it will be noticed that there are four pronouncements involved in their tariff plank: the first is a general demand for substantial reductions in the customs tariff; the second is a fairly long free list; the third is another demand for substantial reductions in wearing apparel and footwear and articles of general consumption; and the fourth pronouncement is in favour of an increase in the British preference to fifty per cent.
Now, the question which, I think, is most interesting to the members of this House and to the people of this country is simply this: Do the official Opposition intend to stand upon that platform, or is it one of those platforms which are sometimes made for the purpose of subterfuge of camouflage or the like? I remember well in the old days, twenty or twenty-one years ago a favourite story which my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) was fond of telling the House. It related to a coloured porter who wanted to put the passengers off the platform at the end of his sleeping car. He told them that they must not stand there. "Why not?" they demanded. "Oh," he replied, "a platform is not to stand on; a platform is to get in on." And if my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's were in the House now, I would remind him that the tariff plank of the Liberal party formulated in 1919 is entirely different from any tariff policy carried out by the Liberal party during the fifteen years they were in power. From 1900 to 1917 I was a member of that party, and for eleven years I was a supporter of the Government then in power, and I think that my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's will agree with me when I say that there was no free trade talk in the Liberal party in those days-there was no such tariff plank in the policy of the Liberal party as I have read to the House to-night. The tariff policy of the Liberal party in those days was a continuance of the old fiscal policy which came into force in 1878. And what I maintain now is, that forty-two years ago Canada adopted a fiscal policy which has continued in force until the present time.
I am quite well aware that prior to 1896 it was not an uncommon thing for leaders of the Liberal party to pronounce in favour of free trade. I often heard declarations from Liberal leaders in those days to the effect that the Liberal party was in favour of free trade as they have it in England;
I heard declarations by Liberal leaders that they would not be content until protection had disappeared "root and branch" from our fiscal system. I heard those declarations prior to 1896, but I think the House will agree with me that when the change took place and the Liberal party came into power no one in any quarter of the country ever heard such declarations from Liberal leaders. The Liberal Government adopted the settled fiscal policy of the country with slight alteration and they maintained it in force during their whole term of office. I call to the attention of my hon. friend from Red Deer that when he entered the House of Commons in 1908 his complaint in Parliament and out of Parliament was that he was the only free trader in the House. And it was so. He was the only one who had the courage to state a case in favour of free trade. He used to .take us by the buttonhole and lead us into the corridors to instruct us in the intricacies of the doctrine of free trade. He did not find very many apt pupils, I agree, but still he was then, as he now is, an arden free trader. But his complaint in those days was that the Government was a protectionist government, not a free trade government.
The principle of protection was maintained during the whole regime of the Liberal party from 1896 to 1911, and only at this late date, during the summer of 1919, do we have a pronouncement from that party which, if not an out-and-out free trade pronouncement, is a pronouncement which involves such a mutilation of our fiscal system as to render it absolutely innocuous and worthless if put into force, but at the same time is a pronouncement behind which, I believe, the official Opposition does not stand as a body to-day. Had my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition during the recent by-election in Peterborough read to the electors of that riding the tariff pronouncement, as I have read it to-night, had my hop. friend from Shelburne and Queen's done the same thing, and had the present hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Gordon) said to the electors, "I stand upon the Liberal tariff policy of 1919," I think I can safely predict that the hon. gentleman would not

now be the representative of that constituency.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: That was not the issue.


Hugh Guthrie: Do you wonder, Mr. Speaker, that the people have some curiosity to know just where the parties and members of this House stand in regard to this fiscal question? I hope that within a measurable time matters will be so adjusted in this House that we will have the acid test applied and that each hon. member will be asked to declare, by his vote, just where he stands in regard to the fiscal policy of this Dominion. My hon. friend the leader of the Opposition says that the tariff was not the issue in West Peterborough. I agree that he has done everything in his power to avoid that issue both in the by-elections and in this House. I agree that in the amendment which he has moved to the Address he has up to the present moment	rather	successfully
avoided that issue. It is apparent that he has framed his amendment for the express purpose of avoiding the issue, simply because he knows that he cannot command the united support of his own party behind him upon the tariff issue.
And now just a word in regard to the first amendment.	You will note, Mr. Speaker, that in his somewhat animated address in moving his amendment my hon. friend made no charge against the Government of malfeasance, of misfeasance or of non-feasance. He did not suggest that anything in the legislative record of the Government in the past was in any respect improper or lacking, nor did he offer the slightest suggestion to the House that the published platform of the present Administration which was issued last summer contained anything which did not meet his approval. In a word, he made no charge whatever against the Government from a legislative or an administrative point of view.
He contented himself solely with a highly excited and exaggerated denunciation of the Government as usurpers, as buccaneers,
I think also; as a Government that would prostitute parliamentary authority, as autocrats, and I do not know what else. But his great difficulty was to find substance, to find a foundation, upon which to rest such a charge, and the more he delved into history for precedent, the more he found himself refuted in the position which he himself took. What strikes the candid observer, what strikes the diligent listener
TMr. Guthrie.]
to this debate, is that every single precedent that has been brought forward has proved to be a precedent which establishes the constitutional position of the Government and refutes the statement of the amendment that the Government has nc authority to continue in office.
My hon. friend dipped deeply into British parliamentary history, from, I think, the year 1865. He occupied the time of the House in telling us just how long each Parliament had lasted in Great Britain. He reviewed the Triennial Act, the Septennial Act and the Quinquennial Act, and he did the same thing in connection with the history of this country from Confederation down to the present time-for what purpose I know not, because he established nothing as a result of it. Had he desired to examine the parliamentary history and the parliamentary records of Great Britain and of Canada he would have found those records full of instances which fit the present case. I ask him to examine any period in the last forty or fifty years in the parliamentary history of Great Britain or of Canada; if he does, he will find absolute justification of the position which the Government has taken at this time and the strongest refutation of the position which he himself has assumed.
My. hon. friend from Quebec South (Mr. Power), also indulged in some parliamentary history and cited one or two instances, which, he thought, afforded something like constitutional precedent. I propose as we pass along to mention these two precedents, because I think that they most clearly establish the Government's right to continue in office to the close of the parliamentary term and completely refute the charge made in the amendment offered by the leader of the Opposition.
We have in the first place the precedents of Great Britain. The one best known is that of 1892 to 1894. It is well known that the Liberal party under the late Mr. Gladstone carried the elections of 1892 in Great Britain. They were established in power but the majority was not satisfactory. The combined vote of the Irish Nationalists and the Conservatives might upset them at any time. In 1894 Mr. Gladstone, becoming a very old man and being in ill-health, determined to retire. He tendered his resignation to Her Majesty the Queen, and she sent for Lord Rosebery, who formed a new government. The Gladstone Government had then been in office only two years but there were loud cries from the Conservatives of England for a dissolution. The

charge was made by Mr. Balfour that there was no mandate; that the new Government should dissolve and appeal to the people. But all Liberal authority at that time supported Lord Rosebery, among them Lord Morley, Sir William Vernon Harcourt and others, and Lord Rosebery determined to carry on and refused to dissolve the House. In taking this course he maintained that he was following constitutional precedent, and I submit that he was. But his predicament was a very odd one. He met Parliament; he brought down the speech from the Throne, and on the first day of the sitting he was met by a motion from Mr. Henry Labouchere to amend the address and the motion carried in the House of Commons by a majority of two against the Government. I read from volume 2 of Herbert Paul, page 260:
Although the majority for this irregular proposal was only two, it put the Government in a most humiliating plight, and they were compelled, with the contemptuous assistance of the Conservatives, to negative their own Address as the only feasible plan for getting rid of the amendment.
But even in this serious situation Lord Rosebery did not think of resignation; he persevered, as was his constitutional right. During that session Sir William Harcourt was only able to carry his budget by a majority of twelve. A month or two later Mr. Speaker Peel resigned, and the Government only succeeded in carrying the Speakership and elected Mr. Gully by a majority of eleven. However, in the summer of 1895, the Opposition were strong enough to carry a vote for reduction of a vote in a Finance Bill-it was carried by a majority of seven, and only then was it that the Rosebery Administration resigned. Were they right or were they wrong? They were elected in 1892. The Gladstone Government ceased ' to exist in 1894 for the same reason that the Borden Ministry ceased in this country in 1920. A new Government came into existence in England under Lord Rosebery. The demand was made in England by the Conservatives of those days for a dissolution. The Liberals said: No, and continued until they were defeated in the House and had to dissolve.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: That Government was not a war Government.


Hugh Guthrie: Well, we will come to a war government, later on because there was one in 1890. In 1895 the Salisbury administration took power. They dissolved the House, carried the election and continued in office until 1900 when the "kharki election" took place in England.


Rodolphe Lemieux: An old Tory trick.


Hugh Guthrie: It was charged, of
course, by the Liberals that the Conservative party in bringing on an election had taken advantage of the Boer War. Peace was not concluded, I think, for a year and a half afterwards, and it was alleged by Liberals that the Conservatives had taken a most unfair advantage and had held a war election. The Conservative party were returned to power on that occasion by a very substantial majority. Lord Salisbury was Prime Minister. In July, 1902, ill health and old age being given as the reasons, he retired, and Mr. Balfour was called upon to form a new administration. Then the boot was on the other foot. There are quotations from the speech of Mr. Asquith, Lord Morley and Sir William Harcourt on record in which it was urged that as a new administration had been formed which had no mandate from the people that the government should dissolve parliament. The charge was made by Mr. Asquith that this was a war government; that the party which had attained power had taken advantage of war time to secure an election for themselves which in normal times they could not have secured. But in spite of such criticism the government determined what its constitutional right was. It did not heed the taunts or the criticism of Mr. Asquith and the Liberal party but continued in office until January, 1896. Then dissolution took place and the Liberal administration went into power.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Hugh Guthrie: Well, I am going to give you a Liberal precedent now. The Liberal administration went into power under Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. Unfortunately, the duties of office weighed upon him, and after a period of only two years, his health became so poor that he was obliged to resign, and on the advice of his physician, on the 6th of April, 1906, he proceeded to the Continent where his Majesty then was, and tendered his resignation. His resignation was accepted and Mr. Asquith was sent for. He went to Europe and was there asked to form a new ministry. He returned to London on the 10th of April and announced that he would do so. Once more the clamour was made against the new administration, this time by the Conservatives-it looks to me Mr. Speaker, as it depended a great deal in Great Britain, and perhaps, in Canada as well, on the question of " whose ox is gored." The charge was that as Mr. Asquith had no

mandate that he should dissolve parliament, but Mr. Asquith continued to carry on, and did carry on, until the expiration of the parliamentary term. Now, these are all the precedents I have been able to find in Eritish history throughout the last twenty-five years, back to 1892 and I challenge my hon. friends opposite to find a solitary instance in which a contrary proceeding was adopted in Great Britain.


Ernest Lapointe: I am quite willing to accept the challenge and I will quote proceedings to-morrow.


Hugh Guthrie: Now, I am going to turn to the Dominion of Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Hugh Guthrie: Of course, Canadian precedents, unfortunately neet with laughter on the other side of the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Hugh Guthrie: Unfortunately, they are all against my hon. friends opposite. I will go back to 1891-I started with 1892 in Great Britain and I think I covered the whole ground. Again I will issue the challenge: in every single instance in this country from 1891 down to the present time the precedents which exist establish the right of the government and refute the contentions of the Opposition.
In 1891, on the death of Sir John Macdonald, a new administration had to be formed. The House knows as well as I do that when a prime minister dies or resigns his administration comes to an end. The ministers do not need to resign; the resignation of the prime minister operates as the resignation of the whole government, and a new administration comes into being. Then came Sir John Abbot. He did not dissolve the House; he went right on. Unfortunately his health failed, and his Government came to an end by reason of resignation-a case on all fours with the present instance. Then Sir John Thompson was called on to form and did form an administration. He did not dissolve the House; he carried on. Unfortunately, in the course of a short time, he died and Sir Mackenzie Bowell was called upon to form a government. Sir Mackenzie Bowell did not dissolve Parliament; he formed a new government and carried on.
I do not think that in the Dominion Parliament from 1891 until last July there was a single instance where the precedent established both in Great Britain and Can-

ada was not precisely followed in the case of every new administration; Time after time in the various provinces of Canada the same situation has arisen. In 1896, in three provinces, three distinct administrations came to an end by reason of the fact that Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who had attained power, called to his Councils three provincial premiers. In Ontario the government of Sir Oliver Mowat was in power. He resigned:	his government came to an
end; he came to Ottawa, and a new government was formed. This is pure Liberal doctrine. Mr. Hardy formed a new administration, but he did not dissolve the legislature. Subsequently Mr. Hardy resigned, and the late Sir George Ross came in and formed a new government, but he if I remember correctly did not dissolve the legislature. In Nova Scotia, the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) was prime minister. He was called to Ottawa in 1896, while still premier of that province. He was succeeded in Nova Scotia by a new premier, Mr. Murray, who formed a new government; but there was no dissolution, no mandate from the people; the government simply carried on in accordance with constitutional practice. So in New Brunswick where Mr. Blair was prime minister, Mr. Blair came to Ottawa, a new premier came in; a new government was formed in New Brunswick but there was no dissolution. So, also, as recently as 1917, the same thing happened out in the western provinces when Mr. Sifton came to Ottawa, and, so also when through the resignation of Mr. Scott in Saskatchewan, when Mr. Martin took office, I do not think there was a dissolution, but I am not sure of that. More recently than all, within the last few months, in the province of Quebec, a Liberal premier resigned, a new government was formed in Quebec, but there was no dissolution, simply a carrying on to the end of the parliamentary term. What I maintain is this: We have a plain direction in the law of this country, section 50 of the British North America Act, which was quoted to this House by the leader of the Opposition, and which says that Parliament shall extend for a term of five years. We in this Government have followed both the letter and the spirit of that law, and our action has been in entire accord with the best parliamentary procedure. I do not know just what body of the people is clamouring for an election at this time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Everybody.


Hugh Guthrie: I know the leader of
the Opposition imagines that there is in this country some tremendous demand that; he should be the rescuer of Canada during the present crisis; but I have been travelling throughout Canada lately, and I have not noticed any loud or prolonged or widespread cry for assistance, guidance or direction from the hands of my hon. friend. It is said by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) that he does not agree with the constitutional doctrine propounded of the leader of the Opposition in his amendment but he thinks that on account of the by-elections, this Government should resign. In all fairness, I am going to put the case to the hon. member for Marquette. This Government came into being last July, since which date there have been five appeals to the "people in four provinces of Canada. In three of those appeals in three separate provinces, the people have in the most decided tone commended the Government and sent us a supporter. In two instances in Ontario, the Government has not been sustained, in one constituency a supporter being sent to the leader of the Agrarian movement and in one constituency a supporter being sent to the official leader of the Opposition.


Arthur Meighen: On the Government
platform.	'


Hugh Guthrie: There have been five
by-elections since this Administration was formed. If you want to discuss the sins . of omission or commission, if there were such, of the former administration, you may be able to say that there were, under a former government by-elections, that showed the temper of the people. But is it not a fair and reasonable proposition that I am making

namely, that the question should be decided on the record of the by-elections which have taken place since this Government was formed? Is that not a fair way of obtaining an expression of the opinion of the people of this country?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Hugh Guthrie: If you do so, you will have to admit that the preponderance of public opinion is in favour of the Government and of the course which it is pursuing. On the other hand, if you wish to go back to the year 1917, and take the record of the by-elections since Union Government was formed in that year, I am quite free to say that in doing so you may show that a majority of the by-elections have been
against the government. But it was not this Government-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Hugh Guthrie: This Government is
answerable only since the middle of July last year-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Hugh Guthrie: -and this Government is prepared to stand on its record before the people and to be judged by the people on that record. Sometimes I think the official leader of the Opposition assumes unto himself, in respect of his position, a good deal of authority which he does not actually possess amongst the electors of the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. McMASTER:: That is to be proved.


Hugh Guthrie: Exception was taken on Friday last by the hon. member for Antigonish and Guysborough (Mr. J. H. Sinclair), to a statement made on this side of the House to the effect that the official leader of the Opposition represented merely a remnant of the Liberal party. I do not see why my hon. friend should take such grave exception to a statement of this kind. I can tell my hon. friend exactly what he knows to be the fact, namely, that in eight provinces out of the nine in this country, he represents only a remnant of the old Liberal party. My hon. friend has only to cast his eye about this Chamber to satisfy himself upon this point.
In two of those provinces my hon. friend does not represent a single elector if one may judge by his following in this House. So when my hon. friend talks of the great Liberal convention and the great Liberal party in the Dominion of Canada let me tell him-and I am only telling him what he knows already-that the old historic Liberal party in this country, save in one single province, has ceased to exist. Let me point out to him the figures. In the Maritime Provinces there are 31 representatives sitting in this Parliament, and my hon. friend can muster only 11; and one on the cross-benches will give him 12.


Ernest Lapointe: Just try an election.


Hugh Guthrie: I thought a few real facts would waken some of them up. Let me tell my hon. friends opposite that in the great province of Ontario there are just as many old line Liberals supporting my right hon. friend and his Government in this House as are supporting the leader of the official Opposition.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Hugh Guthrie: Somebody dissents
from that. It will not take very long to count them. I was fond of making the statement before the West Peterborough election that the Government had one more than the Opposition, but now I think we stand just ten-ten; that is, the Government has just as many of the old Liberal party from Ontario supporting it as has my hon. friend opposite. Then let me tell my hon. friend that from lake Superior to the Pacific ocean he as only two supporters of the old Liberal party, in a total of about fifty-seven constituencies.
All my friends around me must well remember the days when we looked to British Columbia and the Yukon, with 14 seats, as a great Liberal stronghold. But glance at it to-day in this House. How many followers does my hon. friend muster behind him of old line Liberals from British Columbia and the Yukon? Does he lead a remnant? No, not even a remnant, not a single supporter. From the old Liberal province of Alberta, one single member supports my hon. friend. From the old Liberal province of Saskatchewan with 16 seats in this House, there is not a single representative of the old Liberal party sitting behind my hon. friend. Take Manitoba. One single representative from that great province. Am I not right then, Mr. Speaker, when I say that my hon. friend the leader of the official Opposition, when he assumes in this House or in this country to speak for the old Liberal party of this Dominion, is assuming a good deal more than he is entitled to? He has only to look across the House. He has only to recognize the members of the old Liberal guard, sitting on this side of the House.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It is hard to recognize them.


Hugh Guthrie: No longer Liberals, I admit-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Hugh Guthrie: -because when the
testing time came we found that the line of cleavage was so deep, so well defined-


Mr. DUFF:: So many loaves and fishes.


Hugh Guthrie: -we found the issue which had to be determined was perhaps the greatest issue which any of us would have to determine in our public lives, and when we took the decisive step, we took it deliberately, knowing what it involved.

And now we are proud to be members supporting the present Administration, supporting a party which we ourselves helped to form in the first instance, on a platform which we ourselves helped to prepare, and in support of a Prime Minister who was the man of our own selection. That is the real situation which exists in this House to-day. There is no use trying to camouflage the facts. Those are the plain facts as they exist to-day. While it is charged in various quarters that the former supporters of this Administration are flocking back to my hon. friend's support, I can discover only two of them. I see a great many who have crossed the floor and joined the Agrarian party, but I have seen only two in all who have become out-and-out members of the official Opposition. I do not even like to call them the old Liberal party because, as I said before, they represent merely a small remnant of that old party.
Now just a word as to the sub-amendment. To my mind it raises a question of considerable difficulty and importance in the House. I do not know but what under certain circumstances the sub-amendment might have been considered well-timed and appropriate, but I think there would be great difficulty in the way of any government accepting such an amendment under present circumstances. I see great difficulties in the way of the Government accepting a sub-amendment to the Address in reply to the speech from the Throne, which itself is a pronouncement of Government policy put into the hands of His Excellency the Governor General, to be presented to the House. I can, however, see force and reason in the sub-amendment, while I do not see either force, reason or propriety in the amendment moved by my hon. friend the leader of the official Opposition.
There are a number of important considerations which must be dealt with. There is one practical consideration which is quite outstanding. It is a stock-in-trade charge of my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition that this Government is non-representative, is mis-representative is unrepresentative, and so forth, but let me tell him that if Parliament were dissolved and an appeal made to the people of this country with the constituencies arranged as they are to-day, we would have a Government just as mis-representative, just as unrepresentative, of the people of Canada as one could well imagine. You would have absolute non-representation in 25 or 30

seats in the West, but that is not the difficulty with which I am for the moment concerned. I heard a fiery denouncement in this House by the hon. member for Kent (Mr. McCoig) a few nights ago. He thought some monstrous iniquity would be perpetrated upon the people of this country if the census were taken in June, and a redistribution of seats were to take place soon thereafter. Why, it is the natural and proper thing according to our law. The situation in Canada to-day, particularly in regard to the industrial centres, demands that there shall be no delay in regard to a redistribution of seats. The thing has become so anomalous as to be almost a public scandal. Think of it-and surely these facts will appeal to hon. members of the House-or in the city of Toronto, a riding like Parkdale sends one member to the House of Commons-


Mr. CAHILL:: One too many.


Hugh Guthrie: -while the adjoining rural constituencies of Peel, Halton, Duf-ferin, South Perth and East Elgin, all put together, have not the population of Park-dale, yet they send five members to the House. I am told the situation is just as scandalous in the province of Quebec. I heard in the city of Montreal a few days ago that ten rural ridings in the province of Quebec, returning ten members to this House, did not have the population of two certain ridings in the city of Montreal.


Mr. SHEARD:: Was one of them Brome?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, Brome was one of them. Now, Mr. Speaker, is not that a situation that demands a speedy remedy? Why should it take three, four or even five industrial workers in the city of Toronto to cast a vote equal only to a single vote cast in the townships adjoining the city? I have heard it said at a public meeting in the city of Toronto that the inequality is so great in Ontario that during the provincial elections of 1919 in Ontario the Conservative candidates in the city of Toronto polled more votes than the combined vote of the party now in power in Ontario under Mr. Drury.
Is it not a most glaringly unfair situation? Whatever government is in power in this country, such an unequal situation calls for a speedy remedy. You cannot impose such a disqualification, such an inequality, upon industrial workers resident in the city nor should it be allowed to continue. All men and all women are supposed to be free and equal
under our law, and the theory of our constitution is that they shall have equal treatment and opportunity. We pride ourselves upon our democracy; yet we suffer to be continued in this country a system which allows four or five members to represent a rural district with a population only equal to one constituency in the city of Toronto. I do not say that any particular political party is to blame for this situation, which has simply been allowed to grow up in this country.
I have read debates in this House in the early days, long years before I became a member, when this question was under discussion. An argument was advanced that the city of Toronto should not have equal representation with the rural districts, because, as a rule, there were three or four members for other constituencies living within the city boundaries. I read another argument on the question, in which it was contended that it would be unfair to the candidate to impose upon him a large territory and a large population in the country because he would not have time to get around during elections. These are surely considerations of a most minor character. The theory of our law is equality, and the sooner we come to equality of voting and representation in this country the better.
There is opportunity to remedy this situation in the near future. I would not hesitate to say that cities like Montreal and Toronto and other cities in Quebec and Ontario, as well as the great cities in the West, are entitled to greater and more equal representation than they now have and must get it at an early date. The time is not far distant when they can be given it. Under our law the census will be taken in June. If dissolution took place now and an appeal were made to the country, the residents of these industrial centres would to a large extent be disqualified at the next election; they would not be entitled to proper representation. The greatest inequality would exist. That, Mr. Speaker, is to my mind one most substantial reason why the Government should continue to carry on, and why we should take the census.
On the contrary, there is only one possible reason which can suggest itself to any one why we should not carry on, and that reason will be definitely evidenced when the vote on the question now before the House is recorded. That question is

simply this: Have we or have we not, the confidence of the House of Commons? That is the test, and the question will be settled when this vote is taken. The duty of this Government, if it is decided that it has the confidence of the Commons, is to go ahead and do its work, take the census and bring down to the House a fair redistribution Bill applicable to every part of the country.


Mr. THOMAS VIEN (Lotbiniere):: Sir, that I have conclusively established that the majority in this House does not represent the majority of the people. But to corroborate my statement, let me call the unquestioned testimony of the most ardent supporters of the Union Government. I refer you, Sir, to the statements of the Hon. Mr. Carvell, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) and the Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Guthrie), made here when they opposed the War Times' Election Act as an iniquitous measure. Forsooth, this Act was so vicious in principle that it had to be removed from our Statutes which it disgraced. It broke faith with citizens established in this country for more than ten years. It gave the franchise to foreigners who had never had any interest in our land. It unsettled our whole electoral economy and subverted the very foundation of our citizenship which we had afterwards to re-establish. This Government is not supported by the representatives of the majority of the people. Said the Prime Minister:
In point of character, of aim and of purposes',, we are the same Government. In addition to the prosecution of the war we had thirteen other specific duties.
Let us consider these two statements together. On both of them the right hon. gentleman is contradicted by his ex-leader, by his colleagues, and by his own speeches. At Milton on November 29th, 1917, the right hon. member for King's, N.S. (Sir Robert Borden), said:
There is only one issue in this campaign, whether we shall keep our pledge or bond given to those men, or whether we shall abandon them when they need our help most.
This declaration the right hon. gentleman repeated a hundred times in different parts of the country. And his (Mr. Meighen's) colleagues-what did they understand? Let us listen to the hon member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar):
That is not to say that I do not feel strongly on the tariff, but I feel the present issue is not the tariff but the winning of the war.
Listen to the hon. Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) :
When the Government was formed in 1917 there was a tacit understanding that until the war was over, our soldiers home, and demobilization completed, we should carry on, and that is the view I take now.
And, again, the same gentleman said:
The present Government, as originally constituted was not created for the purpose of making a general revision of the tariff. This Government was for a war purpose and to carry out a war policy.
	,
And he continued:
The members comprising the Government held strongly divergent views on the tariff question. We recognized at that time that those differences existed, and we decided to lay aside our differences for the time being.
What is true of members of the Government is equally true of members of the House on both sides: the members of this House were not elected because of their tariff leanings. Hear now, Sir, the right hon. Prime Minister himself:
There was never a clearer issue before the people than to-day. It is simply an issue of Union Government and the vigorous prosecution of the war, or Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Canada's virtual withdrawal from the war.
It is simply an issue of Union Government and vigorous prosecution of the war. Can he now verily state, as he does, that in point of character, of aim and of purpose his Government stands where it stood in 1917? Can he contend that, in addition to the prosecution of the war, thirteen points had been put before the people? The right hon. gentleman would lead one to believe that he is a distant rival of the father of the fourteen points; but he is surely not a lover of the truth.
On the question of the tariff, to which I now come, the right hon. gentleman is armed with a double-barreled gun, one barrel loaded against the Liberal Opposition, the other against the Progressive party. Against the Liberals he shoots the idea that we are not serious in our endeavours to reduce the tariff; that we are high protectionists, as he is himself; that we avoid the issue; and he suggests to the Farmers that they had better support him because they know where he stands. Against the Farmers he fires the opinion that they are radicals allied to the worst and most subversive elements-men preaching dangerous doctrines. The inuendo is an invitation to Quebec to form an alliance with him. These rhetorical methods are typical of the right hon. gentleman. They have been described in the press as follows:
The tactical methods upon which Mr. Meiglien relies to achieve his ends upon the public platform were fully illustrated in the public addresses which he delivered during his recent western trip. It is Mr. Meighen's method to state at the outset of his speech the case as between himself and his opponents. He states it with care and deliberation and with a great appearance of fairness. After doing this he proceeds to the destruction of the Opposition by direct and vigorously delivered assault. Unreflecting observers are likelv to attribute the resulting victory to the strength of Mr. Meighen's case; but more sophisticated unlookers are apt to remark that it is chiefly due to the weakness of the Opposition's case as set

forth by Mr. Meighen. The Opposition's case in reality some times differs somewhat from its case as set forth by Mr. Meighen in preparation for his tilt at it; and there are times when Mr. Meighen's platform triumphs are victories, not over real opponents but over "men of straw,"
Speaking in this House, the Prime Minister did not renew his attack on those radical communists who, he suggested, formed part of, or at least are allied with, the Farmers' party. Was his ammunition expended? Let not our Farmer friends believe it. For the time being both barrels of his firearm were busy discharging the ammunition compounded of his subtle sophistries against those "miserable Grits" who in their platform had dared to touch the , most holy arch of tariff protection, and against their leader, who, in the judgment of the right hon. member, was intensely anxious to see that no clear issue got before the electors at all. Standing in front of the temple, ad instar the Pharisee of old, the Prime Minister says:	"Oh farmer, praise the Lord with
me that I am not like my contemptible opponent, non-committal and deceitful. In the speech from the Throne I have written a paragraph that defines clearly and definitely where the Government stands; a paragraph that states the principle in words that no man can fail to comprehend." Let us see whether my right hon. friend can get out of this more justified than his exemplar.
The paragraph to which he refers is as follows:
It is the opinion of my advisers that in such revision regard must be had to the necessities of revenue and as well that the principle of protection to Canadian labour and legitimate Canadian industries, including agriculture, which has prevailed for more than forty years in this country, must be consistently maintained.
Will my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) lend me an expression for the purpose of defining correctly this plank of the Government's platform? Yes, Sir, I find it in his recent speech in the House. It was not intended to apply to this paragraph of the speech from the Throne, but it fits in very nicely as a description of it

"A new policy, wonderfully vague in its definitions." I say "a new policy" advisedly, because the protection of industries, including agriculture, as suggested by the speech from the Throne, is a radical departure from the well-known policy of the Tory party, which has always been the protection of industries at the expense of agriculture. But is it not
also gloriously indefinite? Because I never heard of any details being given out by the Government to show how they reconcile high tariff with the interests of the agriculturalists. On the contrary, notwithstanding this paragraph in the speech from the Throne, the right hon. gentleman tells us, as reported in Hansard, page 40:
We are not proposing any departure from the historic policy of this country pursued under this Government, under the late Government, under the Government of which the leader of the Opposition was himself a member.
"We are not proposing any departure," he says, but in the same breath he says also:
In the speech from the Throne there Is a paragraph that defines clearly and definitely where the Government stands, a paragraph that states the principle in words that no man can fail to comprehend.
"My advisers are convinced of the necessity for the revision of the customs tariff," says the speech from the Throne. "We are not proposing any departure; if we were we would ijot have the support of the Minister of Immigration," says the right hon. gentleman, and he concludes with a frantic appeal to the member for Red Deer to support this party whose position he knows to be consistently maintained. Let us dig a little deeper, Sir, perhaps we shall find in the Prime Minister's declaration some particle of truth. Speaking of my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration, he says:
The one man who has been consistent on this tariff issue. He is standing where he stood when the Liberal party were in power on the tariff issue.
Speaking at Winnipeg on the 13th of November, 1920, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Calder) said:
Three years ago I did not understand the tariff question as well as I do at the present time. I was more or less a parrot, just as other people are parrots. I got up in the Legislature and advocated free fertilizers when I did not know the first thing about it.
Listen again to the Prime Minister's later declaration:
The Minister of Immigration ... is standing where he stood when the Liberal party were in power on the tariff issue.
Oh, truth, beautiful truth, the right hon. gentleman is no lover of thee! It is part of the political tactics of our friends opposite on the question of the tariff to throw into the eyes of the electorate the dust of two sophisms. To the big interests they say: Beware of the farmers and of their radical ally; if they attain to power they



will subvert the whole economic structure. To the farmers they say: Do not trust the Liberals; they are protectionists in fact if not in principle. Neither of these statements is true, Sir. All over the world the stabler element in each country is the farming element. The farmer owns the land, he tills the soil, he has taken root. He is not transient in character, and he is not radical in principle. Is he a communist? Why should he be ready to share a hardly gained heritage with any prodigal spendthrift? Here let me borrow an expression from the Prime Minister himself:	The absurdity of
the argument is simply pathetic. In respect to the Liberals, could there be a more impudent statement than that the present Government stands where the Liberal party stood when it was in power? Did we not lose power on the question of reciprocity, so savagely fought by our opponents with their delusive bogey, "no truck or trade with the Yankees." The Liberal party can stand on its record. In 1893 they passed resolutions advocating tariff reduction and reciprocity. During their fifteen years on the Treasury Benches they removed the tariff on many articles; they reduced it at least twenty-five per cent, and afterwards to the extent of thirty-three per cent by the British preference, and they fell on the battlefield of freer trade espousing the cause of reciprocity.
In 1919, they reaffirmed their faith in the policy of freer trade and reciprocity, and that policy they will, if returned to power, carry out in the full measure that circumstances will permit. That they have not all at once embodied in the laws their advocated principles is not to be wondered at, it is to their credit and it is certain they will not fall into radicalism in the future. They are the doctors; the country is their patient, and a patient very sick after forty years of protection. It would be criminal to administer to him too suddenly a full ration of the healthier food of freer trade, hut under their good care the patient will recover, and will gradually come to it. The farmer of today is like a man starting upon a journey and in search of a companion. Two offer themselves, both fully armed with the same weapons. One is armed to hold him up, en route, for his purse or his life. This is the protectionist, using the tariff for the enrichment of the few at the expense of the many. The other is armed to defend the farmer in case of need. This is the Liberal aiming to protect

legitimate industry and to prevent dumping, but caring not for the sap-sucker, mushroom industry. His choice between the two is not doubtful. Let us hear his leader:
I would describe our position thus,
Says the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) in his Winnipeg speech:
Our eyes are set on the goal of the elimination of protection as a principle in our fiscal policy. We propose to get to that goal by stages that will make it as easy as possible for our industries to readjust themselves to it. During this period revenues will, of course, come from the tariff, and there is no reason why customs duties cannot continue as in Great Britain to afford a very considerable portion of our revenue, and if need be the principle of a countervailing excise tax can be applied, in this way compelling the home manufacturer who enjoys the protection to contribute his share to the national treasury. Furthermore, there is no reason why a form of assistance cannot be given to industry without the pernicious privileges that obtain under the operation of a protective tariff. Energy to turn the wheels of our factories is one of the main essentials in the development of industry. We have that power in Canada in abundance in the unharnessed energy of our magnificent rivers. It is quite a proper function for governments to develop this, as indeed it has been developed in Winnipeg, and place it at the disposal of the manufacturer at cost.
The Liberals can stand on their record, and our farmer friends know where we stand. The Minister (Mr. Guthrie) accuses the farmers of not encouraging Canadian industries, and in the full swing of his oration, he did not allow proper explanations to come forth. I thought at the moment it was not very generous and not befitting the greatness of a minister of the Crown, but it is only human on the part of the hon. gentleman, not to allow the desired effect of his address to be spoiled. I am not the guardian of my farmer friends; they are quite capable of looking out for themselves; but it did not suit the purpose of the minister to be told that if the farmers could purchase cheaper in Canada, they would be good enough business men to find their requirements in their own country. It also did not suit the minister to be told that if the farmers did not purchase in Canada, the reason was because, owing to the co-operative character of the farmers' organisation, the big industries of Canada would not sell to them. It did not suit the minister either to be told that if the Canadian manufacturer does not come up to the mark with his American competitor, the reason is that he lacks the incentive of competition, which is the life of trade

and which gives to the latter this superiority over the Canadian manufacturer, who, fed with the milk of protection, is not in that healthy condition which ensures the survival of the fittest.
As to the difference between England and Canada he would have been told, had he permitted the interjection, that by a striking departure from what was done in England, our capital, energy and manpower were in Canada diverted by protection from our basic industries and the development of our natural resources that await the hand of that sturdy canadianism which stands courageously upon its own feet and regards as contemptible the tutorship of the protective tariff. But I am sorry for the Minister of Immigration and Colonization. I have a liking for the hon. gentleman, and I regret to see that he is absent from his seat to-night. " A Liberal I was, a Liberal I am, and nobddy can make me anything else,"-does he say? Alas, in his duel with the Prime Minister, he was vanquished. Vae victis-to the victor the spoils. Here he stands, hands, feet and soul tied to the chariot of a Tory leader who drags him in his triumphant course to the capitol. " I was a parrot," groans the poor victim. Indeed, it is somewhat unfortunate for the Prime Minister himself. Geese once saved the capitol; parrots never did, and the capitol itself was never nearer to the Tarpeian P.ock than it is to-day. Horrified at the treatment she had received at the hands of the Prime Minister, the Truth fled to London, Paris and Geneva, running after our three diplomat ministers for refuge. Suffocated by the flight, she found them at- the Peace Conference, busying themselves in that nursery of their newly-born child, " Canadian Nationhood." Poor new Susanna, what vain attempts had you not to suffer from these three wicked elders!
For three years, Sir, these hon. gentlemen have assumed the mission of convincing the Canadian people that a complete evolution has taken place in our national status; that we are no longer a colony governed by Downing street, not even a self-governing dominion, but an independent nation in the sub-league of the British commonwealth.
I shall not quote all the interesting statements we have heard in this House on that subject. Let us summarize them in these words of my right hon. friend, the Minister of Justice:
28i
We stand to-day by common acknowledgment of the statements not only of the other dominions, hut of the United Kingdom itself, nations each equal in status with every other.
There is a dazzling light that shines upon this country, and shows her forth to the world as a nation standing on a footing of equality amongst the nations.
Then, using the favourite method of his leader, he proceeded to put up his man of straw. Referring to hon. gentlemen on your left, Mr. Speaker, he said:
They have not seen this developing work of time in which their late leader had so implicit faith. They do not seem to have the aspirations that he had. They want to see their Canada always in her swaddling clothes-clamouring to be kept in the nursery. In the Egyptian darkness of their colonial condition the light appears to be too much for their unaccustomed eyes.
That stale old saw so often used, and more often abused, is completely worn out. It contains two fallacies, and was broken into pieces in 1919, by two graphic words of the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon). When speaking on the ratification of the treaty of peace, he said:
I reaffirm my admiration for the theories enunciated by the members of this Government. I wish they were right, but I am afraid they are wrong.
Is it not childish, Sir, to try this make-believe on the Canadian people: "Canada stands to-day in the world on a footing of equality amongst the nations?"
Why, what other independent nation, even the most humble, is presided over by a Governor General? What other sends her law cases to the tribunal of British Islanders, in appeals of last resort? What other nation has to pass under the jurisdiction of British diplomats in her official or business relations abroad?
What other nation would allow British newspapers to discuss openly who should be the representative of His Majesty the King in this country, all booming their respective candidates? If we are a nation, Sir, let the right hon. gentleman take a step further and introduce legislation enabling this Parliament to determine who shall preside over our destinies.
Last April, when in Paris, it came to my notice that a high Canadian official was desirous of obtaining an audience from the President of France. Our provincial agent could not arrange it; Canada's High Commissioner could not arrange it. The British Ambassador alone was accredited to the French Government. But a citizen of Monte Carlo could apply to the representative of his own country.

Sir, I wish we were a nation, but we shall not allow the right hon. gentleman to pay us with words. We have lost none of the aspirations of our late beloved leader, but we want the real thing, not its shadow. His statement therefore is doubly untrue.
Mr. Speaker, there is an element of real nationhood which is sadly lacking in this country. It is the binding spirit of national unity. They have it in France. They have it in England. They have it in the United States. When a Frenchman speaks of his France, his sweet France, he has spoken his last word. The love of his native land inspired his national bard in immortal lines never truer than to-day:
O France I douce France, O ma France bfinie! Rien n'fipuisera done ta force et ton gfinie! Terre du devouement, de l'hfiro'isme, de la foi,
II ne faut done jamais dfisespfirer de toi, Puisque malgrfi tes jours de deuil et de misfire, Tu trouves un litres, dfis qu'il est nficessaire.
The Englishman has said his all when he has named "Merry Old England." And full of pride he sings: "Rule Britannia! Britons never shall he slaves!" Ten million Sammies sprang to their feet at the call of the Stars and Stripes, ready to jump over the top for the defence of old U.S. During his political life, Sir Wilfrid Laurier tried to develop in Canada a sentiment akin to that, fostering lofty ideals, mutual love, moral and economic progress. He fell under the assaults of hon. gentlemen opposite, animated by prejudices. that he had always combatted. A dark cloud passed over this country. Its silver lining is now more and more in sight. Let us have dissolution; let us ask the people to constitute a Parliament and a Government fully armed with its confidence, and let us sink contemptible differences and prejudices. Let us all work for the upbuilding not of a visionary but of a real and powerful nation. Then, but not till then, shall we be able all to sing from the bottom of our hearts: "O Canada, mon pays, mes amours".


Mr. ROBB:: Mr. Speaker,-


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I move
the adjournment of the debate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Is the House ready for the question?


Mr. PIUS MICHAUD (Restigouche and Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to
say a few words before the question is put. I have followed with considerable interest the speeches of both my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island (Mr. Mclsaac), 
and the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Mac-Kelvie), and to both gentlemen I tender my hearty congratulations. I do not quite understand the language of the roaring waves of the Atlantic Ocean, nor am I inspired by the atmosphere of the deep valleys where the apple blossoms seem to delight every citizen of that part of the country. But after having heard such a description from representatives of the extreme East as well as the extreme West, I feel like asking my hon. friends this question, whether, after all, Ottawa, within sound of the Chaudiere falls, is not the proper place for the capital of the Dominion? But the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Doherty), and the ex-President of the Privy Council (Hon. Mr. Rowell), went to Geneva with a message from this Government. What was that message? They went to represent Canada as a nation and not to undertake responsibility for all wars that may take place in the future in Europe or anywhere else. Who, in South America or even North America during the last war, made a sacrifice equal proportionately to Canada's either in life or in money? The duties of our delegates at Geneva were properly discharged when they opposed strongly section 10 of the Treaty. If we are no longer colonials we have to decide for ourselves what attitude this young country shall adopt in future in any European wars. For my part I regard this country as a democracy, and responsibility for the expenditure on our part of money or the contributing of arms and men should, I think, be entirely within the discretion of this nation.
At the great Conference, we have heard, many problems were solved}, and many great questions settled. But to my mind there is one great subject which should have been thoroughly discussed and not have been left over for future consideration. In the name of humanity, in the name of the suffering orphans, in the name of small nations, Canada with great courage responded to the call and sent her bravest sons to do battle during four years of war. Canada has lost over 50,000 of her best men. Noble act on the part of this country! Our soldiers were equal to the soldiers of that "contemptible little army" that kept the Germans in check for so many days in the northern part of France; they were equal to the French soldiers who took charge of 450 miles of front during the war. Our sacrifice shall

remain fruitless if the millions of orphans and thousands upon thousands of widows are not provided for with food and clothing and given ample support and maintenance.
It is true that Austria has received some help; and it is also true that during last winter very many of our people suffered greatly, being in dire need. Let the nations who profited by the war be called upon to help the survivors of these unfortunate sufferers who were driven to take part in the great struggle at the behest of their respective Kings, Emperors or Presidents. What did the nations in South America do during the war? How many of these nations, many of whom have joined the League of Nations, are ready to do something in return to relieve the widows and orphans of those who made the supreme sacrifice for the salvation of the world? What have Norway, Sweden, and Denmark done? I am informed that these countries have requested the privilege of joining the League of Nations. If this is so I would ask our delegates to get into communication with the proper authorities with a view to making these nations, which are to join the League, contribute to some extent to the debts which Canada contracted during the war.
Last session during one of my speeches I alluded to immigration into this country, and I suggested that immigrants from rural districts in foreign countries should he encouraged to come to Canada. Events which have transpired since that time have caused me to change my mind more or less. I am now convinced that for the present our effors at immigration should be directed towards the repatriation of our own people who have crossed the boundary line into the country to the south within the last few years in the hope of making a better living. I invite those former fellow citizens of ours to come back to Canada. They are the ones who at present, and at all times, should be encouraged to once more make their homes in the Dominion, because they understand the Canadian Constitution well and know how best to fulfil their duties as Canadians. I would therefore advise the Government to confine their efforts along the line of immigration to inducing former Canadians to return, and seeing that they are the only immigrants for the present admitted to Canada.
The speech from the Throne contains the statement:
My advisers are convinced of the necessity for revision of the Customs Tariff.
What revision does the Prime Minister expect to make? The Minister of Finance went through the Dominion endeavouring to discover what public sentiment was on the question of the tariff. Well, while everybody was endeavouring to arrive at the best solution, the Prime Minister away down in Eastern Canada was preaching high protection. The right hon. gentleman did not have the courage to even wait until a complete report could be obtained from the Minister of Finance before giving expression to his views. Later on in the session I shall avail myself of the opportunity of stating my opinion on the tariff.
I will merely say now that from what can be gathered from the speeches of hon. gentlemen opposite there appears to be only one class of people in Canada who are greately interested in the tariff question, and that is the manufacturers and their representatives in this House. Mr. Speaker,
I am in favour of an early appeal to the' Canadian electors for many reasons which have already been discussed by hon. gentlemen who have preceded me. I believe that the sooner an election takes place the better it will be for the welfare of all classes of the country. I have faith in the Canadian people, I have faith in my party, and I have faith in my leader. I believe that the amendment is a wise one and I shall gladly support it.


Georges Henri Boivin: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Mr. J. FRED JOHNSTON:: (Last Mountain) : Mr. Speaker before the question is put, I desire to offer a few observations. Preliminary to doing so I wish to extend to the mover and seconder of the Address my hearty congratulations upon the excellent manner in which they acquitted themselves of the task entrusted to them. I also wish to offer my congratulations to the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Meig-hen) on his attainment to the high office that he now fills. When the right hon. gentleman was promoted to his present office I was asked by many of my constituents what kind of a man the new Prime Minister was. I invariably replied, Sir, that in my opinion he was one of the brainiest men in the House-a man of very keen intellect and a sharp tongue. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the keenness of the Prime Minister's intellect may remain with him for many years, but I could also hope, for his own good and I believe for

the comfort of his opponents, that his tongue might lose some of its sharpness.
I wanted to take part in this debate for more than one reason, but mainly because one.is sometimes misunderstood and one's motives misinterpreted if he casts a silent vote. I have reference to the interpretation that was placed upon my own actions, and that of some other members of the group with which I am associated, in connection with the resolution introduced last session by the Right Hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) pertaining to the re-appointment of the Canada Wheat Board for the purpose of handling our 1920 crop. I had believed, Mr. Speaker, that it was pretty generally understood by hon. members on both sides that those of us on the cross-benches from the province of Saskatchewan were in favour of that resolution and in favour of the Canada Wheat Board being re-appointed to handle the wheat crop of 1920. What was my surprise to learn from a paper published in the province of Saskatchewan, known as the Regina Leader, that the Minister of Immigration and Colonization, in speaking to the deputation representing the farmers of that province intimated that he had not understood our position to be as I have outlined. In order not to lay myself open to the accusation of misquoting the minister I will give you his own words as reported in the Regina Leader of October 8th, last. I will not read the whole report as it is a lengthy one. I will simply invite your attention to that part of his remarks which makes reference to those of us who occupy places in the Progressive group. The Minister said:
This year the question of the continuation of control necessary came up for consideration. The matter was thrown into Parliament for discussion, and was debated at length. The Farmers' organizations of the West were represented by Mr. Crerar, Mr. Maharg, Mr. J. F. Reid, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Gould, Dr. Clark and others. The hon. Mr. Calder asked the deputations to read their speeches. So far as he could recall, none of these gentlemen insisted on wheat control, they would take no decided stand. As usual, they were prepared to let the Government take Its own course, and if things did not turn out right they would have an opportunity to attack and criticize, and so on.
So far as he could recall, none of these gentlemen insisted on wheat control, they would take no decided stand. As usual, they were prepared to let the Government take its own course, and if things did not turn out right they would have an opportunity to attack and criticize, and so on.
(Mr. Johnston.]
As I said a few moments ago, I thought when this legislation was before the House, and I still think, it was pretty generally understood that those of us from the province of Saskatchewan occupying these cross benches were in favour of that legislation. It is true that not all of us spoke upon the matter when it was before the House. I admit, Sir, that I am a new member and do not pretend to be thoroughly familiar with parliamentary procedure, but if it is necessary that every hon. member should voice his opinion upon all matters of legislation that come before the House, I have learned something that I did not know before. But what are the facts in connection with this matter? As will be noticed from the quotation I have just read, the hon. gentleman directed the attention of this deputation to the speeches of hon. members of this group, and he named six of us. The other evening when the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) was speaking or.e would think that some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House believed they had him cornered, so to speak, in respect to his attitude on the reappointing of the Wheat Board. But I would direct their attention and that of the House to a paragraph of the speech of the hon. member for Assiniboia as it may be found on page 4113 of Vol. 5 of last year's Hansard. These are his words:
In conclusion, let me state that I propose to vote for the re-establishment of the Wheat Board this year. I pledge myself only for this year.
It will be noticed that in the interview with the hon. Minister of Immigration and Colonization which I have quoted, his memory was so faulty that he could not recall any of us on these cross benches having spoken on the subject. I would also refer to the words of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), the leader of this group, to be found on page 4119 of the same volume. He stated:
Everyone who knows anything of the European situation must realize that conditions there are very unstable, and in these circumstances, perhaps, there is justification for the Government assuming the power which they are asking for under this legislation.
That was the resolution which had been introduced by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster). And, further, I will quote from the speech delivered by the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg), and in doing so I

apologize to him, as he has not yet spoken in this debate, but I want to get these quotations together. In referring to the action taken by the Farmers' organization in Western Canada, he said:
At their convention they went further; they asked not only enabling legislation,-
I might say that the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce when introducing this resolution termed it, I think "enabling legislation." The hon. member for Maple Creek continued:
-but that the Government continue the Wheat Board for another year. The Canadian Council of Agriculture passed a similar resolution, and recently, through their executive, they have again stated that so long as there is governmental control of buying in the European markets, we must have governmental control in Canada in regard to disposing of our wheat.
The hon. Minister of Immigration and Colonization-and I am glad to see him in his seat- in speaking to the deputation of farmers in Regina last fall directed their attention to the speeches of the hon. members of this group, and said that they would not take any definite stand. I have just quoted from the speeches of three of the six hon. members that he mentioned at that time to show that they did take a very definite stand. And one would think that if a member of the Government or the Government itself were looking for advice, as the hon. Minister of Immigration and Colonization said they were in looking to this group, they would have turned to members on their own side of the House. It is easy to perceive that the hon. minister was trying to build up a case against those of us in this group who happen to come from the province of Saskatchewan.
Now I would direct the attention of the House to some of the remarks of hon. members of his own side of the House, and at page 2596, volume 3, of last year's Hansard, will be found a speech of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), during the course of which he said:
My hon. friends opposite, everyone of them practically, have stood four square for the control of the sale and handling of wheat in this country. They have insisted on the control exercised by the Canada Wheat Board.
To me that seems to be something that the hon. minister could not have taken into consideration. And again I would ask the attention of the House to the words of the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) when introducing this legislation. He said:
So that the Bill differs from one which is to come into force immediately-
Speaking to the resolution he had introduced.
It may not go into force at all. I hope it will not be necessary to put it into force.
The point I wish to make is, that the hon. Minister of Immigration and Colonization in meeting that deputation of farmers in the province of Saskatchewan-and I think it is only a fair interpretation to put upon his remarks at that time-was trying to place some of the blame for the Canada Wheat Board not being reappointed to handle the 1920 crop upon some of us from that province who sit on these cross benches.
I believe the quotations that I have laid before the House will prove that we were in favour of that legislation and had nothing whatever to do with the Wheat Board not being reappointed.
In connection with this wheat control, Mr. Speaker, we have heard it said very often in this House that the farmers of Western Canada are opposed to the Wheat Board. That was in a measure correct, but when the circumstances leading up to control being assumed by the Government of handling our wheat is taken into consideration, I think there was some reason why the farmers of the western provinces were opposed to that control. As is well known, control was first taken for handling the 1917 crop, and I have in my hand a copy of the report of the operations of the Board of Grain Supervisors for Canada. This Board, as is well known, handled the crop of 1917 and 1918, and the balance of the crop of 1916 that was still in the country when they were appointed by Order in Council on the 11th of June, 1917. I wish to read from this report in order to show just how this board was appointed. It says:
The Government created the board because the accumulating effects of the war upon international trading in general, and trading in wheat in particular, made some such step necessary. The financing of the war by the various countries involved had led to a vast extension of credit and currency in those countries, and this tended toward a general increase in price levels. This was accentuated as regards wheat by several powerful contributory causes. The wheat surpluses of Russia, Australia, India and the Argentine were either inaccessible altogether, or difficult to secure by reason of the increasing shortage of tonnage. Not only the Allied peoples in Great Britain, France, Belgium and Italy, but also the neutral countries in Northern Europe, were dependent upon North America for their necessary wheat supplies. And the methods by which the governments of those countries bought their wheat

in North America in 1915 and 1916 added to the difficulty. Their agents bought wheat, for example, at Winnipeg in competition with each other, and with Canadian and American millers, and in some cases the same government had different buyers for Canadian wheat and flour. The primary object of these buyers for the European governments was to secure quantities of milling wheat; the price was a secondary consideration. And as the grain exchanges in North America were still open and unrestricted, these government buyers soon became the dominating operators.
The effect of all this was not only an increase in the price of wheat, with occasional violent fluctuations, but was in a word the disintegration of the grain exchanges both in Canada and in the United States.
This disintegration appeared dramatically in Winnipeg in the spring of 1917. During the previous winter months the agents of the AJlied Governments had bought wheat freely to be delivered in May and July. They bought this wheat mainly, if not altogether, from the operators of country elevators, who as they bought wheat from the farmers from day to day sold it for May and July delivery. Neither the buyers for the Allied Governments nor the elevator operators who sold the wheat were gambling in futures. The buyers were providing to the best of their judgment for the future needs of the countries they represented, and the sellers were securing their loans from the banks by hedging their purchases in the only way known to commercial men of providing against risk. These future contracts called for grades 1, 2 and 3 Northern. It turned out that much of the wheat thus sold or hedged did not measure up to these contract grades. As a rule, and under normal conditions, this presents no great difficulty, because the buyers are willing to accept lower grades on the contracts at fair discounts. This, indeed, is a well-established commercial practice. In the spring of 1917, however, the British representatives intimated that they were unwilling or unable to accept lower grades at discounts, and that they would require the contract grades. This forced the sellers to try to buy the higher grades on the open market, with the result that the prices of these grades went skyrocketing. As prices soared the sellers were called for increasing sums of money, and the limit of their credits was soon reached. In effect the market was cornered and a disaster upon a large scale was impending.
To avert this, the Winnipeg Grain Exchange-
I wish that noted, Mr. Speaker-not the producers of Western Canada at all, but the Winnipeg Grain Exchange.
-investigated the conditions, found them as above, closed the market for futures, and by the aid of the Dominion Government, secured the consent of the British authorities to a settlement along commercial lines. As a result, the British accepted the lower grades of wheat on the contracts at fair discounts, the discounts were speedily fixed and the situation cleared up.
While, however, the situation iwithin the Grain Exchange was cleared up for the time, there remained the possibility that a similar crisis might develop at any time so long as

the British and European governments continued their methods of buying in an open market at Winnipeg, and this possibility alarmed the grain trade. In the meantime, the increasing cost of living was alarming consumers in North America generally, and the United States had established its food control system. The dependence of Great Britain and her Allies and of European neutral countries upon North America for wheat meant that there was no limit to the price to which wheat might go, except ability to pay. Under these circumstances, a delegation from the Winnipeg Grain Exchange waited on the Dominion Government, and asked for government control of the grain markets during the war.
At that time Mr. Balfour was in the United States on his mission, and the vice-chairman of the British Cereal Commission, Mr. Anderson, was one of his party. Mr. Anderson came to Ottawa, bringing with him Messrs. Robson and Stewart of the Wheat Export Company, the agency of the British Royal Commission, and a series of conferences took place between the Canadian Government, the British representatives and the delegates from the Winnipeg Grain Exchange. These conferences resulted in the creation of the Board of Grain Supervisors.
I have read that long report so that it might be known that in the first instance the control of the grain and wheat market in Canada did not come about as a result of the request of, or for the benefit of, the producer, but rather at the direct request of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange and those connected with it.
Again, it is claimed that the farmers objected to the Canada Wheat Board which was formed to take over the handling of the grain in 1919. That was true in some quarters; but what were the circumstances leading up to that objection? All will remember that the market was opened early in the grain season of that fall. It remained open for a few days and during that short period wheat advanced very rapidly; then the Government stepped in and appointed the Canada Wheat Board. It was only reasonable that the producers of grain in the Canadian Northwest, seeing these conditions, with the market open and advancing rapidly and the Government stepping in and taking control, should come to the conclusion that the Government did not want the producers to get all that their product would bring them. That was the reason why there was opposition to the Canada Wheat Board. But after the Wheat Board had handled the crop so successfully, the grain producers of Western Canada, who know a good thing when they see it, were perfectly satisfied; accordingly they wanted the Canada Wheat Board appointed last year to handle the 1920 crop. Speaking for myself, I was absolutely in favour of the resolution as introduced last

year by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and I take strong exception to the words of the Minister of Immigration and Colonization when he met that deputation in the city of Regina.
The market conditions in the part of Saskatchewan in which I live and in the constituency that I have the honour to represent in this House were very bad during this last fall. I happen to live on the old Canadian Northern branch line running from Regina to Saskatoon and on to Prince Albert. Now, the condition there was simply this: early in the grain season we were not able to get cars. As everybody in Western Canada knows, the market was not open very long when the price started to go down, and before cars were available the price had gone down to such an extent that the farmers did not feel like disposing of their wheat; the consequence was that they held on. Many of them, having taken advances against their wheat in store, were squeezed out on that advance. The peculiar feature of it was that a few days after scores of these men had been squeezed out of their wheat, lots of cars were available. We were told that the cars were needed for the coal trade and that that was why we could not have them for the purpose of moving oitr grain. I happen to know that in many of the towns along that line there were large numbers of orders for coal, but the coal was not being delivered. If these cars were in the coal trade, why were they not delivering the coal? If cars were not available while the wheat was still in the producers' hands, how did it happen that the moment the wheat was out of the producers' hands, and in the hands of the dealers, plenty of cars were available? That was the case and on top of that came the increase in freight rates, and I am not overdrawing the situation when I say that the inability to procure cars and the increase in freight rates have driven many of the farmers of that part of the country into insolvency. There is no doubt about that, and consequently they are not feeling very kindly disposed towards the powers that be. The other day I noticed that the chairman of the Railway Commission is reported to have made this statement in the city of Montreal:
As long as he was chairman of the board, freight and other rates would be fixed so as to enable the railways to pay all operating expenses and allow for a reasonable profit on their investment. Mr. Carvell went a little further. Eastern Canada, he said, took the reasonable view of such matters that he did, but he "had nothing to say about the rest of the country." The people there, he said, "seem to
have sentiments differing from the rest of Canada."
If the railways of this country are going to be able to charge such rates that dividends can be paid whether or not the users of those railways are put out of business, it is high time that the Government took a hand in the matter.
I wish to refer very briefly to the request made by the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Henders) for a commission or committee to investigate the grain business of this country. I noticed that some newspapers a day or two ago drew attention to the fact that no members of the Progressive group had backed the hon. member in his request. Mr. Speaker, every member of this group wants an investigation if there is anything to investigate. But, as pointed out by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) this afternoon, we already have a Grain Commission appointed by this Government, and if that Commission is not doing its work, it is the business of the Government to see that it does its work properly. If we are to have this business investigated, let it be a thorough investigation, and let the work of the Grain Commission be investigated as well.
. I am reminded about another board appointed by the late Government to do service for the Canadian people. I refer to the Board of Commerce, which, if I understand the matter correctly, was appointed to enquire into and, if possible, to assist in lowering the high cost of living in Canada, and to run to ground any profiteers. What was the outcome, and what did that board accomplish? A very few weeks or months after its appointment, the chairman resigned; a little later on the vice-chairman also resigned, and after struggling along for a few weeks, the third and last commissioner, Mr. Murdock, resigned, and coupled with his resignation were certain charges. Briefly, the charges were there that when the board, in its endeavours to carry out the work that it was appointed to do, got into the position to do something effective, the protecting hand of one or more members of the Government of the day was outstretched, and the work of the board was set at naught. The leader of the official Opposition, (Mr. Mackenzie King) asked that a commission be appointed to enquire into the Murdock charges; but, so far as I know, nothing has been done in that regard, and the Canadian people will have very little confidence in any commission that

this Government may appoint to investigate the grain business, or any other line of activity in this country, unless they are given to know what was in or behind the Murdock charges in connection with the workings of the Board of Commerce.
In the fall of last year, after the original members of the Board of Commerce had all resigned, and certain members of the Civil Service were appointed in their place, we had the spectacle of the sugar barons of this country, when they found themselves in a position to lose money, coming to Ottawa and appealing to the so-called Board of Commerce, which in turn placed an embargo upon the importation of sugar into Canada. Public opinion ran so high that the Government eventually had to intervene and rescind that order of the Board. The question that the people of Canada are asking themselves to-day, and that they have been asking since that time is this: Is the action, as we have it, of the sugar men of last fall similar to some things that happened and that are contained in the Murdock charges? And the people are waiting for the information.
The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. *J F. Reid), in speaking the other evening, had something to say about the work of a Mr. Murray who is attempting to muzzle the press of Canada, and I thought it well to add something to what that hon. member had to say at that time. I shall give to the House a full introduction to Mr. Murray, so that there may be no mistake as to his identity. I am taking this from the Morning Leader, published in Saskatchewan, under date of February 19, 1921:
Gilbert Mackintosh Murray, B.A., former editor of "Industrial Canada," for many years secretary of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and who evolved the brilliant scheme of forcing the press of Canada to support Protection and a Protectionist Government through the distribution of advertising patronage, is needless to say, persona grata with Hon. Jas. Calder, Hon. Dr. Reid, and other influential cogs in the governmental machine at Ottawa.
Prior to resigning the secretaryship of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, Murray resided for the first six months of 1919 at Ottawa. During this period his services were supposed to be "loaned" to the Government; his salary, however, was paid by the C. M. A., the Government giving him at the same time a per diem living allowance of $10.
It was right following upon this Ottawa sojourn of Murray's with all the inspiration of close contact with ministers of the Crown fresh upon him, that Murray, in the role of chief propagandist for the Meighen-Protection-ists, launched his great scheme for making the press of Canada solidly Protectionist by getting the manufacturers to withhold their advertising from such papers as the Toronto Globe, The Morning Leader, the Saskatoon Phoenix, etc., etc.

At a meeting of manufacturers held in Toronto, which was attended by Murray, he himself laid before them his plans as chief propagandist of the protectionist forces, including his ready-print schemes and other little ideas for spreading Protectionist propaganda and thus, as he says, "educating the voters of Canada." A special committee was appointed to look after certain phases of the propaganda campaign and a fairly substantial initial sum was raised to help the project off to a good start. Among the chief contributors to the initial campaign fund was a well known implement firm and one of the largest textile firms of Eastern Canada.
In fairness to a large number of Canadian manufacturers, it is only right to admit that they, together with at least one prominent official of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, strongly opposed the Murray plan of campaign on the ground that the C. M. A. and the cause of Protection would lose immeasurably more than they would gain should the Canadian people ever get wise to the fact that a cold-blooded plan was in operation to force public opinion to a favourable consideration of Protection by the chloroforming of editorial opinion and tampering with the Canadian press news services.
The whole-hoggers, however, were in control ; Murray received orders to go ahead and accordingly the boycott against the lower tariff newspapers was started and the other branches of the propaganda campaign were put through their initial stages preparatory to the final "big drive" in the great task of "educating the voters of Canada" to say "Hurrah for Protection !"
I have two other clippings here from the same paper with reference to this matter. First, there is an explanatory note in reference to these ready-prints, which reads as follows:
"Ready-prints" or "patent insides" are partly printed newspapers supplied by certain publishing houses to the publishers of weekly newspapers, who complete the work of publication by printing the local news and advertising, etc., before issuing the finished papers to their subscribers.
Then it goes on to say:
G. M. Murray the would-be chloroformer and poisoner of the Canadian press, on December 6, 1920, issued "Confidential" circular "M-251", dealing with "Ready-prints and Patent Insides". Murray starts Circular M.-251 with the following statement:-"The situation as regards ready-print services in Canada has undergone considerable change within the last year."
The statement is absolutely true, inasmuch as during that period Gilbert Macintosh Murray became actively interested in the ready-print business-doubtless, as in the case of his proposal for tampering with the Canadian Press news service, for the purpose of "educating the voters of Canada" by getting certain propaganda published in as many Canadian weekly newspapers as possible.
Largely as the result of the activities of Murray and those identified with him in seeking to "educate the voters of Canada," two new ready-print concerns were started, one for the purpose of supplying ready prints to weekly publishers in the prairie provinces and the other for the purpose of supplying eastern publishers.

That statement is significant, Mr. Speaker, because we have heard a lot in this House about certain gentlemen having one policy for the East and one for the West, while the Government had but one policy. But here we see that Mr. Murray, their chief propagandist, with his ready-made prints, has one output for Western Canada and another for Eastern Canada. The article goes on:
At the outset, the proposition was outlined to Murray's political friends at Ottawa, including members of the present Government, and duly approved as satisfactory, following which the necessary capital was raised by some of Murray's monied business friends, the initial sum of approximately $40,000 being subscribed to start the scheme, among the largest subscribers being a well-known Brantford firm and firms in St. Catharines and Montreal.
A close conecting link between the two Murray ready-print concerns was supplied in the person of W. Nelson Wilkinson, who was placed on the boards of both companies.
Mr. Winkinson was formerly connected with the Toronto World, was subsequently engaged in the Publicity Department of the Government at Ottawa, and has for years been on close friendly terms with Murray.
Starting with a ready-print more or less colourless, it is Murray's intention at the proper time, a few months prior to an election, to endeavour to "educate the voters of Canada."
I want to point out in that connection that we have heard something in this House about a menace. To my mind, this is a real menace. This man Murray has started this ready-print business and he contracts with country newspapers all over the country to supply them with these "patent insides". They enter into that contract, believing they are going to get news as newspapers generally carry it, but a few weeks prior to an election, having tied themselves up with this contract, and not being able to get paper from any other source, they will be forced to publish papers, in all probability, at least so far as Western Canada is concerned, carrying a line of political doctrine to which they are absolutely opposed. The article goes on:
The following "confidential" circular sent out by Murray December 29, 1920, to the Canadian manufacturers to further enlist their support in his nefarious campaign to undermine the freedom of the press shows the extremes that he and his Ottawa friends are prepared to go to in their desperate attempt to maintain the Meighen-Calder Government in power.
This confidential circular is rather lengthy, so I shall read only enough to give the House an idea of the kind of propaganda that Mr. Murray has undertaken.



G. M. MURRAY,

[Stage Direction]
709 Yonge Street,
Toronto, Ont.
Confidential.	M-256

[Stage Direction]
The ostrich is said to bury its head in the sand at the approach of danger. Don't be an ostrich! Look your danger squarely in the face and prepare as best you know how to meet it.
To-day the free trade storm signals are set as a warning to the navigators upon the sea of business. Make no mistake about it. They are there to be seen, clear as the sun in the sky, by all except those who keep their heads in the sand. The organized farmers, under the leadership of fanatical theorists, have been worked up into a veritable frenzy of resentment against a fiscal policy that they have come to look upon as a special privilege. They are out to effect changes by a process of destruction,-a process that once initiated may go to untold lengths before it can be checked. If those who would thus be destroyed don't speedily organize for their own defence, and marshall all their resources in money and brains to meet the attack, they will almost certainly find themselves powerless to ward off a blow for which the Grain Grower arm is already bared, nerved with the last ounce of strength and determination.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I thought it well to bring this matter to the attention of the House and to place some of it on Hansard so that the people might know to what lengths those in this country who derive benefit from protection will go to retain that benefit. Mr. Murray has very able assistants in hon. members of this Government in decrying the Western Grain Growers and trying to make the people of the eastern provinces believe that many citizens of Canada out there are Bolshevik in our tendencies, have ideas of secession, and are out to wreck the nation, and I do not know what else. I would ask the people of this country, however, to size the matter up for themselves. The few of us here on the cross benches in this Parliament, endeavour to the best of our abilities to represent the views of the organized farmers in Western Canada, and possibly we may not be a fair sample of the Western Grain Growers; but it would not matter if we were displaced by others, for there are many out there who are quite competent to take our places, and I am sure that they are in no sense nation-wreckers.
Regarding the resolution before the House and the amendment thereto, I have given some consideration to this matter, and this thought has occurred to my mind: It has been said that the present Government have usurped power. This may not be correct, if you take into consideration the fact the term of this Parliament has not expired. But the people in the country
[Stage Direction]
are anxious to know when an election will be held. In 1917, Sir Robert Borden organized a Union ministry which appealed to the country as the Union Government. We were told that there would be a fifty-fifty split as between Liberals and Conservatives in the Cabinet. Well, that part of the contract was never lived up to. Again, the people of the country voted for Sir Robert Borden as leader of the Union Government in 1917, and I will put this proposition to the House, as the people will put it to each one of us as their representatives: If, in 1917, Sir Robert Borden had said to the electors of Canada, "I am going to carry on for the war period, and should the war terminate before the conclusion of the parliamentary term, when that time comes, I am going to resign and my colleague-now Prime Minister (Hon. Mr. Meighen)-will then form another government and carry on during the rest of the parliamentary term,"-I submit that there would have been a much different result to the election. I know this much, that the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Hon. Mr. Calder), delivered Saskatchewan to Sir Robert Borden and the Union Government holus-bolus; but if the situation had been placed before the people as I suggest in this supposition, he could not have delivered one seat under those conditions.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Does the hon. member mean to imply that Sir Robert Borden has been feigning illness?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I did not desire to interrupt the hon. member, but I think he would be well advised to adhere to the practice and not refer to an hon. member by name.


John Frederick Johnston: I am sorry to have transgressed the rule, Mr. Speaker; it was not my intention to do so. So far as the question asked by the hon. member (Mr. Sutherland) is concerned, I cannot see that it has any bearing whatever on my remarks. I said nothing whatever in reference to Sir Robert Borden's illness.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


John Frederick Johnston: I mean, the hon. member for King's, Nova Scotia. The right hon. gentleman's illness has nothing to do with my argument. The statement was made in this House yesterday by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion), that this Government was elected in 1917.
TMr. Johnston.1
Well, now, to my mind that is not so. If I understand events correctly, this Government was not elected in 1917 but was manufactured here in July, 1920. Much stress has been laid on the argument regarding redistribution and full representation for Western Canada. Now, Western Canada wants her full representation in this House; there are no two ways about that.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


John Frederick Johnston: I am glad to hear my hon. friend opposite say, "hear, hear;" it is gratifying to know that he is sometimes in the right. I say, Western Canada wants her full representation in this House; there is no doubt about that.


Joseph Archambault: Possess your soul in patience.


John Frederick Johnston: But there are things dearer to the heart of the people of Western Canada than redistribution, and one thing of supreme importance is that the sovereign will of the people shall prevail. Redistribution is not possible at this time, but a general election is. In my opinion, a general election is past due, and should have been held in this country many months ago. In saying this I am but voicing the opinion of a vast majority of the people whom I have the honour to represent. Hon. gentlemen from Western Canada, particularly from the province of Saskatchewan, who say in this House or elsewhere that the feeling of Saskatchewan is not for a general election at this time, must keep their ears well filled. I travelled considerably over that province during the recess, and the one big question from one end of the country to the other is:	When are we to
have a general election?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: The same thing in
Quebec.


John Frederick Johnston: Now, Mr. Speaker, the hour is very late and I have spoken much longer than I intended. In rising to speak I said there were one or two reasons why I wished to enter this debate. One particular reason was to set the Minister of Immigration and Colonization right on the Wheat Board proposition, and the other was to refute, if I could, the opinion that seems to have got into the minds of some hon. gentlemen opposite that the people of Saskatchewan were not asking for a general election at this time. Having done that, I feel that I should no longer continue to occupy the time of the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Ernest Lapointe: It will not work.


Mr. A. B. COPP (Westmoreland) :: I
should regret very much indeed to have to speak at any length at this hour and I should therefore be very glad to have the opportunity, if the leader of the House would permit me to move the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. DOHERTY:: It is quite early yet.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Very good. If my right
hon. friend refuses to accede to the request I shall have to proceed, but the House has not so far this session sat later than this, and it is only reasonable that I should ask that the debate be adjourned. If my right hon. friend does not see fit to accede to my request, I say to him that in so far as I and the rest of the hon. gentlemen on this side are concerned we are as well prepared to remain here all night as my hon. friends opposite.


Arthur Meighen: I do not want the House to be under any misapprehension. It is not our desire or our intention to ask hon. members to sit here all night, or to refuse to accept a motion to adjourn. However, we would like to continue the debate tonight for a little time longer than apparently seems to be the intention of hon. gentlemen opposite. We have not come to the conclusion that the House should sit all night or anything of the sort, and we have not so intimated.


William Stevens Fielding: Is this not a reasonable hour to adjourn?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am glad to hear^he Prime Minister's statement. It is entirely foreign to arrangement that we should at present sit late. It is now after eleven o'clock, and if I were to begin my speech now an adjournment later would have the effect of breaping up my remarks.


Arthur Meighen: The House might as well sit until half-past eleven.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Very well, but it will only have the effect of breaking up my remarks. I would like, Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to take a few moments in referring to the very eloquent speech delivered this afternoon by the hon. Minister of Militia (Mr. Guthrie), who is not now in his seat. My hon. friend attempted to read a lecture to hon. gentlemen on this side. I would say to him, if he were in his place that he is not in the proper position-either as a retired Liberal or as a newly converted
Tory-to read a lecture to what he styles "the remnant of the Liberal party." I want [DOT] to say to my hon. friend also that although the Liberal party appreciated the hon. gentleman while he occcupied a seat in this House and supported Liberal policies and Liberal principles, the fact that he and his friend from Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) have left the Liberal party does not mean the breaking up of that party by any means.
I would like to know in what water my hon. friend was baptized, so as to permit of the conversion he has undergone in moving from one side of the House to the other? I give him this credit: His conversion apparently was a proper one and one that has been fully carried into effect. What it cost, or where he was baptized, I do not know. It has cost the country a considerable amount, if it has not cost my hon. friend anything.
Let me explain the position which my hon. friend took from 1911 down to 1917 and compare it with the remarks he made in the House this afternoon. Let me compare the remarks which he made on the Reciprocity Agreement in the old Parliament buildings in 1911 with the speech he has favoured us with this afternoon.


William Duff: Go ahead, let us hear it.


Arthur Bliss Copp: My hon. friend (Mr. Guthrie) apparently accused gentlemen of the Agrarian or Progressive group of being disloyal and unpatriotic because they purchased farm machinery in United States and did not make their purchase from our manufacturers in this Dominion. May I be permitted, Sir, to read a few lines in regard to what my hon. friend thought was patriotic in 1911 when the Reciprocity Agreement was under consideration and under debate in this House. Speaking of the price of hogs and beef cattle in the Chicago and Buffalo markets in comparison with the English market my hon. friend on that occasion said this:
Let him compare Montreal and Toronto markets with Buffalo and Chicago, and he will And that the general average is higher, and markedly so, in Buffalo and Chicago during the last five year period. Now what is it we want? We want in my county the privilege of selling our cattle and hogs in Buffalo and other farm produce as well. You say: What is the use, the Buffalo market is lower. Well, if it is, are we hurt? We will then sell in the British market, and not touch Buffalo or Chicago. My hon. friend tells us that we have two markets now, the home market and the British; but when this arrangement comes into operation, we shall have three markets, and the one we have not got now, but which we want to get, is by far the largest. We will not send our products to Buffalo or Chicago unless we get

better prices than we do at home or in the Mother Country. Our western people are not going to send any cattle to Chicago unless they can get better prices there than elsewhere. If they cannot, they will send them to Eastern Canada or Great Britain. What is there unpatriotic or disloyal in that proposition? How do business men conduct their business? If the prices in Buffalo are good, they send their wares there; if not they send them elsewhere. Then why should not the Government carry on the business of this country on business lines? Why should the Government stay its hand at this juncture and deprive our people of one of the great opportunities of their lives?


William Duff: Who said that?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The Minister of Militia.
He was taking the stand that it did not matter in regard to the patriotism or loyalty of the people of the Dominion if they could sell their products in the great market of the United States. It was a proper thing, he said, for our people to have that market. Yet my hon. friend now says there was nothing said by the Liberal party in this House in regard to free trade or a lower tariff. Why, in 1911 my hon. friend himself occupied page after page of Hansard in trying to impress upon the people of Canada that we should have the American market and that free trade in natural products which would result from the Reciprocity Agreement. Nothing said about free trade! Why, my hon. friend was one of the most eloquent exponents of free trade in natural products with the United States at the time the Reciprocity Agreement was before the House for consideration.
The hon. gentleman also had something to say with respect to the hon. member for St. Hyaeinthe-Rouville, (Mr. Gauthier) and he pictured an imaginary story which went back and forth at the time of the Liberal Convention in 1919. Of course that story was only a word picture of what he thought may have taken place. My hon. friend should be very well acquainted indeed, Mr. Speaker, with the tell-tale performance of going in and out from secret meetings and revealing what took place. I can say to my hon. friend that no member of the House is better acquainted with that system of carrying on than my hon. friend himself.
Now, Sir, I do not propose to follow the remarks of my hon. friend any further except to say that he was very courageous this afternoon in telling hon. gentlemen on this side that the time had arrived when they should be brought into the lime light, that their tariff planks and tariff policies should be open to inspection, that the acid test should

be applied to them in order to discover what their views, and ideas and policy were on the tariff. Let me say to my hon. friend that in his speech this afternoon-which we all enjoyed-while he told us what we on this side of the House should do and what we should not do, he never uttered a single word regarding his own tariff policy, and he dared not give it to the House. Now, if he is so courageous in challenging hon. gentlemen on this side of the House as to what they should do and what they should not do, I would say to him: the opportunity is open to him and to the Government of which he is a member, by accepting our challenge, to appeal to the people and let them decide whether they prefer his particular tariff policy or ours. After listening to the debate that has taken place on the motion moved by my hon. friend from Kings P.E.I. (Mr. Mc-Isaac), and on the amendment thereto by my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), one could not help but be highly interested in following the very ingenious, if inconsistent, arguments of hon. gentlemen opposite in regard to their position in this House. My hon. friend the mover of the Address, in a carefully prepared and well delivered speech, referred to the retirement of the right hon. the ex-Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), and delivered an appreciative "obituary" oration to the political memory of the right hon. gentleman. At the same time he offered his very hearty congratulations in which I personally join-to 'Sfche right hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen) who leads the House at the present time on his promotion to the high office which he now holds. It seemed to me, however, that he did not instil into his remarks regarding my right hon. friend the leader of the Government that degree of hope and confidence which has characterized his speeches in the House in the past, and I thought his references to the right hon. gentlemen might very well be treated as the foreword to a book, we will say, to be written and entitled, " The Troubles of the Tory Party in the Future," in which my right hon. friend would be the outstanding character. But considering his uninspiring theme my hon. friend performed his task well, and I congratulate him very heartily.
I was deeply impressed and interested in the remarks made by my hon. friend from Yale (Mr. MacKelvie), who occupies a seat

in this Chamber for the first time. I was more particularly interested in the hon. gentleman, because, as he told the House, he was born in the province of New Brunswick and was a resident for some years in my constituency, and members of his family are still there with whom I am Very intimately acquainted. Consequently I had that much greater personal interest in my hon. friend's speech. I regret to a certain extent that he turned out to be such a very high protectionist, because that is not the teaching he received in his former county of Westmoreland, as he very well knows. But before he concluded his speech we discovered why he was such a high protectionist, for he was straightforward and frank in regard to his position. He said in so many words, "The reason I am a protectionist is because the late government of the right hon. the ex-Prime Minister put a duty of thirty cents a box on apples which is just that much protection for apple growers in the Okanagan valley." It reminded me somewhat of the story of the juryman who acquitted a man charged with sheep stealing. When asked how they reached such a conclusion they said, "We got a piece of the mutton." My hon. friend is a high protectionist because he gets a very good "piece" of protection on apples.
After the motion had been duly moved and seconded, Sir, we had an amendment moved by my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition. That amendment, if carried would, as everyone well knows, mean a general election. My hon. friend quoted a large number of authorities, constitutional and otherwise, in reference to the requirements for a general election, feeling that the time was ripe and the people of the Dominion were demanding an opportunity to pass judgment on the Government. I am bound to admit, along with my right hon. friend, that it has always been an open question and that it is very hard to find out exactly whether a majority of the people want an election or not. But when my right hon. friend answered the arguments advanced by the hon. leader of the Opposition and said, "We were elected for five years, and I am prepared to stand by the letter of the constitution and carry on for five years," I would remind him that while he has, according to the letter of the constitution the legal right to carry on for five years, yet there are two elements in our constitutional law to be considered-there is the written law and the unwritten law. The written law is the British North America Act. The unwritten law is a system of precedents, undertakings, conventions, and
understandings that are just as binding on a government or a parliament as the written law, and I may be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to quote one or two authorities in regard to it. First I will read what Bouri-not has to say in regard to the written and the unwritten law of the constitution in his Manual of the Constitutional History of Canada, in which the following passage will be found:
If we study the constitution of Canada we find that its principles rest both on the written and the unwritten law. In the British North America Act we have the written law, which must direct and limit the legislative functions of the Parliament and the Legislatures of the Dominion. While this Act provides for executive authority and for a division of legislative powers between the Dominion and the provinces-as we have seen in the first chapter of this work-it does not attempt to give legal effect or definition to the flexible system of precedents, conventions and understandings which so largely direct that system of administration and government which has grown up in the course of two centuries in England, and which has been gradually introduced into Canada during the past fifty years, and now forms the guiding principles of parliamentary government in the two countries.
I think every one will admit that there is just as much reason why the unwritten law-the conventions and understandings -should be observed as there is for the observance of our written constitution. There is a moral right, a moral claim, for the observance of one just as much as for the observance of the other-one is the letter of the Constitution and the other is the spirit of it. The Government that was elected in 1917 has not, in my opinion, the confidence of the people; therefore it is their moral right under the unwritten law of our Constitution to give the people an opportunity to say whom they wish to direct the country's affairs during the next number of years, or the next term of Parliament. Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On the motion of Rt. Hon. Arthur Meighen for the adjournment of the House:
William Stevens Fielding: Might I suggest to the Prime Minister that the Wednesday meeting at two o'clock is a very inconvenient arrangement? I know we cannot change it immediately, but I would like my right hon. friend to consider whether, at the earliest stage when it will be proper to take the matter up, we might not make a change in that respect.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House ad- ' journed at 11.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 2, 1921.